Active control comparisons: the ideal trial design

This report describes the concept for a clinical trial that uses carbamazepine as the gold-standard active control for a study of newly diagnosed patients. The authors describe an endpoint including efficacy and tolerability, and a stopping rule that uses a series of interim analyses in order to reach a conclusion as efficiently as possible without sacrificing reliability.

Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research

Major depressive disorder (MDD) trials - investigating either non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions - have shown mixed results. Many reasons explain this heterogeneity, but one that stands out is the trial design due to specific challenges in the field. We aimed therefore to review the methodology of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) trials and provide a framework to improve clinical trial design. We performed a systematic review for randomized, controlled MDD trials whose intervention was transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in MEDLINE and other databases from April 2002 to April 2008. We created an unstructured checklist based on CONSORT guidelines to extract items such as power analysis, sham method, blinding assessment, allocation concealment, operational criteria used for MDD, definition of refractory depression and primary study hypotheses. Thirty-one studies were included. We found that the main methodological issues can be divided in to three groups: (1) issues related to phase II/small trials, (2) issues related to MDD trials and, (3) specific issues of NIBS studies. Taken together, they can threaten study validity and lead to inconclusive results. Feasible solutions include: estimating the sample size a priori; measuring the degree of refractoriness of the subjects; specifying the primary hypothesis and statistical tests; controlling predictor variables through stratification randomization methods or using strict eligibility criteria; adjusting the study design to the target population; using adaptive designs and exploring NIBS efficacy employing biological markers. In conclusion, our study summarizes the main methodological issues of NIBS trials and proposes a number of alternatives to manage them. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Clinical trial design for orthodontists

High-quality research should form the basis of all clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials currently provide the gold standard for investigating the effectiveness of treatment interventions and these are increasingly being used in orthodontics. Here we discuss the reasons why this form of investigation provides the most useful evidence for assessing treatment outcome. The methods available to achieve true randomization, a fundamental component in the design of these trials, are also discussed. In addition, we focus on how to minimize bias in clinical research, not only during the design and management of a trial, but also when disseminating results. We focus on the importance of using control groups correctly and describe methods that are available to adequately power a trial. Finally, we emphasise the importance of accurate and transparent reporting, which facilitates correct communication and assessment of the evidence.

An Innovative Phase I Trial Design Allowing for the Identification of Multiple Potential Maximum Tolerated Doses with Combination Therapy of Targeted Agents

Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.

The ring vaccination trial: a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design to evaluate vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during outbreaks, with special reference to Ebola

A World Health Organization expert meeting on Ebola vaccines proposed urgent safety and efficacy studies in response to the outbreak in West Africa. One approach to communicable disease control is ring vaccination of individuals at high risk of infection due to their social or geographical connection to a known case. This paper describes the protocol for a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design which uses ring vaccination.In the Ebola ça suffit ring vaccination trial, rings are randomised 1:1 to (a) immediate vaccination of eligible adults with single dose vaccination or (b) vaccination delayed by 21 days. Vaccine efficacy against disease is assessed in participants over equivalent periods from the day of randomisation. Secondary objectives include vaccine effectiveness at the level of the ring, and incidence of serious adverse events.Ring vaccination trials are adaptive, can be run until disease elimination, allow interim analysis, and can go dormant during inter-epidemic periods.

Adaptive clinical trial design for targeted therapy development

The development of targeted therapy involve many challenges. Our study will address some of the key issues involved in biomarker identification and clinical trial design. In our study, we propose two biomarker selection methods, and then apply them in two different clinical trial designs for targeted therapy development. In particular, we propose a Bayesian two-step lasso procedure for biomarker selection in the proportional hazards model in Chapter 2. In the first step of this strategy, we use the Bayesian group lasso to identify the important marker groups, wherein each group contains the main effect of a single marker and its interactions with treatments. In the second step, we zoom in to select each individual marker and the interactions between markers and treatments in order to identify prognostic or predictive markers using the Bayesian adaptive lasso. In Chapter 3, we propose a Bayesian two-stage adaptive design for targeted therapy development while implementing the variable selection method given in Chapter 2. In Chapter 4, we proposed an alternate frequentist adaptive randomization strategy for situations where a large number of biomarkers need to be incorporated in the study design. We also propose a new adaptive randomization rule, which takes into account the variations associated with the point estimates of survival times. In all of our designs, we seek to identify the key markers that are either prognostic or predictive with respect to treatment. We are going to use extensive simulation to evaluate the operating characteristics of our methods.^

Clinical trial designs of new medicinal products for treating schizophrenia: discussion of EMA's Guideline and a Better Long Term Trial Design

Background and Objectives: Schizophrenia is a severe chronic disease. Endpoint variables lack objectivity and the diagnostic criteria have evolved with time. In order to guide the development of new drugs, European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued a guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of schizophrenia. Methods: Authors reviewed and discussed the efficacy trial part of the Guideline. Results: The Guideline divides clinical efficacy trials into short-term trials and long-term trials. The short-term three-arm trial is recommended to replace the short-term two-arm active-controlled non-inferiority trial because the latter has sensitivity issues. The Guideline ultimately makes that three-arm trial a superiority trial. The Guideline discusses four types of long-term trial designs. The randomized withdrawal trial design has some disadvantages. Long-term two-arm active-controlled non-inferiority trial is not recommended due to the sensitivity issue. Extension of the short-term trial is only suitable for extension of the short-term two-arm active-controlled superiority trial. The Guideline suggests that a hybrid design of a randomized withdrawal trial incorporated into a long-term parallel trial might be optimal. However, such a design has some disadvantages and might be too complex to be carried out. Authors suggest instead a three-group long-term trial design, which could provide comparison between test drug and active comparator along with comparison between the test drug and placebo. This alternative could arguably be much easier to carry out compared with the hybrid design. Conclusions: The three-group long-term design merits further discussion and evaluation.

Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: The MASTER Trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:244-256 (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2000.

The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRA.CER) trial: study design and rationale

Background The protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1), the main platelet receptor for thrombin, represents a novel target for treatment of arterial thrombosis, and SCH 530348 is an orally active, selective, competitive PAR-1 antagonist. We designed TRA.CER to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCH 530348 compared with placebo in addition to standard of care in patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and high-risk features. Trial design TRA.CER is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III trial with an original estimated sample size of 10,000 subjects. Our primary objective is to demonstrate that SCH 530348 in addition to standard of care will reduce the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, and urgent coronary revascularization compared with standard of care alone. Our key secondary objective is to determine whether SCH 530348 will reduce the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke compared with standard of care alone. Secondary objectives related to safety are the composite of moderate and severe GUSTO bleeding and clinically significant TIMI bleeding. The trial will continue until a predetermined minimum number of centrally adjudicated primary and key secondary end point events have occurred and all subjects have participated in the study for at least I year. The TRA.CER trial is part of the large phase III SCH 530348 development program that includes a concomitant evaluation in secondary prevention. Conclusion TRA.CER will define efficacy and safety of the novel platelet PAR-1 inhibitor SCH 530348 in the treatment of high-risk patients with NSTE ACS in the setting of current treatment strategies. (Am Heart J 2009; 158:327-34.)