Trials - Latest Articles

Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?

Taixiang Wu — 2009-07-02T00:00:00Z

Background: The approximately 1100 medical journals now active in China are publishing a rapidly increasing number of research reports, including many studies identified by their authors as randomized controlled trials. It has been noticed that these reports mostly present positive results, and their quality and authenticity have consequently been called into question. We investigated the adequacy of randomization of clinical trials published in recent years in China to determine how many of them met acceptable standards for allocating participants to treatment groups. Methods: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on 20 common diseases published from January 1994 to June 2005. From this sample, a subset of trials that appeared to have used randomization methods was selected. Twenty-one investigators trained in the relevant knowledge, communication skills and quality control issues interviewed the original authors of these trials about the participant randomization methods and related quality-control features of their trials. Results: From an initial sample of 37,313 articles identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, we found 3137 apparent randomized controlled trials. Of these, 1452 were studies of conventional medicine (published in 411 journals) and 1685 were studies of traditional Chinese medicine (published in 352 journals). Interviews with the authors of 2235 of these reports revealed that only 207 studies adhered to accepted methodology for randomization and could on those grounds be deemed authentic randomized controlled trials (6.8%, 95% confidence interval 5.9-7.7). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of authenticity between randomized controlled trials of traditional interventions and those of conventional interventions. Randomized controlled trials conducted at hospitals affiliated to medical universities were more likely to be authentic than trials conducted at level 3 and level 2 hospitals (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.13, and relative risk 14.42, 95% confidence interval 9.40-22.10, respectively). The likelihood of authenticity was higher in level 3 hospitals than in level 2 hospitals (relative risk 9.32, 95% confidence interval 5.83-14.89). All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial were authentic by our criteria. Of the trials conducted at university-affiliated hospitals, 56.3% were authentic (95% confidence interval 32.0-81.0). Conclusion: Most reports of randomized controlled trials published in Chinese journals lacked an adequate description of randomization. Similarly, most so called 'randomized controlled trials' were not real randomized controlled trials owing toa lack of adequate understanding on the part of the authors of rigorous clinical trial design. All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial included in this research were authentic. Randomized controlled trials conducted by authors in high level hospitals, especially in hospitals affiliated to medical universities had a higher rate of authenticity. That so many non- randomized controlled trials were published as randomized controlled trials reflected the fact that peer review needs to be improved and a good practice guide for peer review including how to identify the authenticity of the study urgently needs to be developed.

N-acetylcysteine does not prevent contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: a randomized clinical trial

Manouchehr Amini — 2009-06-29T00:00:00Z

Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) constitute to be a high-risk population for the development of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), in which the incidence of CIN is estimated to be as high as 50%. We performed this trial to assess the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the prevention of this complication. Methods: In a prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial, we studied 90 patients undergoing elective diagnostic coronary angiography with DM and CKD (serum creatinine [greater than or equal to]1.5mg/dL for men and [greater than or equal to]1.4mg/dL for women). The patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral NAC (600 mg BID, starting 24h before the procedure) or placebo, in adjunct to hydration. Serum creatinine was measured prior to and 48h after coronary angiography. The primary end-point was the occurrence of CIN, defined as an increase in serum creatinine [greater than or equal to]0.5mg/dL (44.2umol/L) or [greater than or equal to]25% above baseline at 48h after exposure to contrast medium. Results: Complete data on the outcomes were available on 87 patients, 45 of whom had received NAC. There were no significant differences between the NAC and placebo groups in baseline characteristics, amount of hydration, or type and volume of contrast used, except in gender (male/female, 20/25 and 34/11, respectively; P=0.005) and the use of statins (62.2% and 37.8%, respectively; P=0.034). CIN occurred in 5 out of 45 (11.1%) patients in the NAC group and 6 out of 42 (14.3%) patients in the placebo group (P=0.656). Conclusion: There was no detectable benefit for the prophylactic administration of oral NAC over an aggressive hydration protocol in patients with DM and CKD.Trial registration: NCT00808795

Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study

Simon Gates — 2009-06-22T00:00:00Z

Background: Sending a monetary incentive with postal questionnaires has been found to improve the proportion of responders, in research in non-healthcare settings. However, there is little research on use of incentives to improve follow-up rates in clinical trials, and existing studies are inconclusive. We conducted a randomised trial among participants in the Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT) to investigate the effects on the proportion of questionnaires returned and overall non-response of sending a GBP5 gift voucher with a follow-up questionnaire. Methods: Participants in MINT were randomised to receive either: (a) a GBP5 gift voucher (incentive group) or (b) no gift voucher (no incentive group), with their 4 month or 8 month follow-up questionnaire. We recorded, for each group, the number of questionnaires returned, the number returned without any chasing from the study office, the overall number of non-responders (after all chasing efforts by the study office), and the costs of following up each group. Results: 2144 participants were randomised, 1070 to the incentive group and 1074 to the no incentive group. The proportion of questionnaires returned (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05, 1.16)) and the proportion returned without chasing (RR 1.14 (95% CI 1.05, 1.24) were higher in the incentive group, and the overall non-response rate was lower (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53, 0.87)). Adjustment for injury severity and hospital of recruitment to MINT made no difference to these results, and there were no differences in results between the 4-month and 8-month follow up questionnaires. Analysis of costs suggested a cost of GBP67.29 per additional questionnaire returned. Conclusions: Monetary incentives may be an effective way to increase the proportion of postal questionnaires returned and minimise loss to follow-up in clinical trials.Trial registration number: ISRCTN61305297

Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

Nicole Gabler — 2009-06-19T00:00:00Z

Background: Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; such variation in therapeutic outcome is termed heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Identifying HTE is necessary to individualize treatment. The degree to which heterogeneity is sought and analyzed correctly in the general medical literature is unknown. We undertook this literature sample to track the use of HTE analyses over time, examine the appropriateness of the statistical methods used, and explore the predictors of such analyses. Methods: Articles were selected through a probability sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and NEJM during odd numbered months of 1994, 1999, and 2004. RCTs were independently reviewed and coded by two abstractors, with adjudication by a third. Studies were classified as reporting: (1) HTE analysis, utilizing a formal test for heterogeneity or treatment-by-covariate interaction, (2) subgroup analysis only, involving no formal test for heterogeneity or interaction; or (3) neither. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with HTE reporting. Results: 319 studies were included. Ninety-two (29%) reported HTE analysis; another 88 (28%) reported subgroup analysis only, without examining HTE formally. Major covariates examined included individual risk factors associated with prognosis, responsiveness to treatment, or vulnerability to adverse effects of treatment (56%); gender (30%); age (29%); study site or center (29%); and race/ethnicity (7%). Journal of publication and sample size were significant independent predictors of HTE analysis (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). Conclusions: HTE is frequently ignored or incorrectly analyzed. An iterative process of exploratory analysis followed by confirmatory HTE analysis will generate the data needed to facilitate an individualized approach to evidence-based medicine.

Design of the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study to assess the ability of remote monitoring to treat and triage patients more effectively

Maurizio Marzegalli — 2009-06-18T00:00:00Z

Background: Heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD) frequently visit the clinic for routine device monitoring. Moreover, in the case of clinical events, such as ICD shocks or alert notifications for changes in cardiac status or safety issues, they often visit the emergency department or the clinic for an unscheduled visit. These planned and unplanned visits place a great burden on healthcare providers.Internet-based remote device interrogation systems, which give physicians remote access to patients' data, are being proposed in order to reduce routine and interim visits and to detect and notify alert conditions earlier. Methods: The EVOLVO study is a prospective, randomized, parallel, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial designed to compare remote ICD management with the current standard of care, in order to assess its ability to treat and triage patients more effectively.Two-hundred patients implanted with wireless-transmission-enabled ICD will be enrolled and randomized to receive either the Medtronic CareLink® monitor for remote transmission or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the design of the trial. The results, which are to be presented separately, will characterize healthcare utilizations as a result of ICD follow-up by means of remote monitoring instead of conventional in-person evaluations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00873899

Antiretroviral effect of lovastatin on HIV-1-infected individuals without highly active antiretroviral therapy (The LIVE study): a phase-II randomized clinical trial

Carlos Montoya — 2009-06-18T00:00:00Z

Background: Highly active antiretroviral therapy produces a significant decrease in HIV-1 replication and allows an increase in the CD4 T-cell count, leading to a decrease in the incidence of opportunistic infections and mortality. However, the cost, side effects and complexity of antiretroviral regimens have underscored the immediate need for additional therapeutic approaches. Statins exert pleiotropic effects through a variety of mechanisms, among which there are several immunoregulatory effects, related and unrelated to their cholesterol-lowering activity that can be useful to control HIV-1 infection.Methods/designRandomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, single-center, phase-II clinical trial. One hundred and ten chronically HIV-1-infected patients, older than 18 years and naïve for antirretroviral therapy (i.e., without prior or current management with antiretroviral drugs) will be enrolled at the outpatient services from the most important centres for health insurance care in Medellin-Colombia. The interventions will be lovastatin (40 mg/day, orally, for 12 months; 55 patients) or placebo (55 patients). Our primary aim will be to determine the effect of lovastatin on viral replication. The secondary aim will be to determine the effect of lovastatin on CD4+ T-cell count in peripheral blood. As tertiary aims we will explore differences in CD8+ T-cell count, expression of activation markers (CD38 and HLA-DR) on CD4 and CD8 T cells, cholesterol metabolism, LFA-1/ICAM-1 function, Rho GTPases function and clinical evolution between treated and not treated HIV-1-infected individuals.DiscussionPreliminary descriptive studies have suggested that statins (lovastatin) may have anti HIV-1 activity and that their administration is safe, with the potential effect of controlling HIV-1 replication in chronically infected individuals who had not received antiretroviral medications. Considering that there is limited clinical data available on this topic, all these findings warrant further evaluation to determine if long-term administration of statins may benefit the virological and immunological evolution in HIV-1-infected individuals before the use of antiretroviral therapy is required.Trial registrationRegistration number NCT00721305.

LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impact

Elie Akl — 2009-06-11T00:00:00Z

Background: Incomplete ascertainment of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is likely to bias final study results if reasons for unavailability of patient data are associated with the outcome of interest. The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect. The secondary objectives are to describe, for published RCTs, (1) the reporting of loss to follow-up information, (2) the analytic methods used for handling loss to follow-up information, and (3) the extent of reported loss to follow-up. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reports of RCTs recently published in five top general medical journals. Eligible RCTs will demonstrate statistically significant effect estimates with respect to primary outcomes that are patient-important and expressed as binary data. Teams of 2 reviewers will independently determine eligibility and extract relevant information from each eligible trial using standardized, pre-piloted forms. To assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect we will, for varying assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up (LTFU), calculate (1) the percentage of RCTs that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change in effect estimate across RCTs. The different assumptions we will test are the following: (1) none of the LTFU participants had the event; (2) all LTFU participants had the event; (3) all LTFU participants in the treatment group had the event; none of those in the control group had it (worst case scenario); (4) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased, with a higher relative increase in the intervention group; and (5) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group.DiscussionWe aim to make our objectives and methods transparent. The results of this study may have important implications for both clinical trialists and users of the medical literature.

Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial

Matthew Sydes — 2009-06-11T00:00:00Z

Background: The multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trial is a new paradigm for conducting randomised controlled trials that allows the simultaneous assessment of a number of research treatments against a single control arm. MAMS trials provide earlier answers and are potentially more cost-effective than a series of traditionally designed trials. Prostate cancer is the most common tumour in men and there is a need to improve outcomes for men with hormone-sensitive, advanced disease as quickly as possible. The MAMS design will potentially facilitate evaluation and testing of new therapies in this and other diseases. Methods: STAMPEDE is an open-label, 5-stage, 6-arm randomised controlled trial using MAMS methodology for men with prostate cancer. It is the first trial of this design to use multiple arms and stages synchronously. Results: The practical and statistical issues faced by STAMPEDE in implementing MAMS methodology are discussed and contrasted with those for traditional trials. These issues include the choice of intermediate and final outcome measures, sample size calculations and the impact of varying the assumptions, the process for moving between trial stages, stopping accrual to each trial arm and overall, and issues around perceived trial complexity. Conclusion: It is possible to use the MAMS design to initiate and undertake large scale cancer trials. The results from STAMPEDE will not be known for some years but the lessons learned from running a MAMS trial are shared in the hope that other researchers will use this exciting and efficient method to perform further randomised controlled trials.Trial registrationISRCTN78818544, NCT00268476

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the Acetylcystein for Contrast-Induced nephropaThy (ACT) Trial: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy

The ACT Trial Investigators — 2009-06-04T00:00:00Z

Background: Aceltylcysteine has been evaluated in several small trials as a means of reducing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), however systematic reviews of these studies do not provide conclusive answers. Therefore, a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to provide a reliable answer as to whether acetylcysteine is effective in decreasing the risk of CIN in high-risk patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Methods: ACT is a RCT of acetylcysteine versus placebo in 2,300 patients at-risk for CIN undergoing an intravascular angiographic procedure. The randomization list will be concealed. Participants, health care staff, investigators and outcome assessors will be blinded to whether patients receive acetylcysteine or placebo. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The study drugs (acetylcysteine 1200 mg or placebo) will be administered orally twice daily for two doses before and two doses after the procedure. The primary outcome is the occurrence of CIN, defined as a 25% elevation of serum creatinine above baseline between 48 and 96 hours after angiography.DiscussionThe first patient entered the trial on September, 2008. Up to April 7, 2009, 810 patients had been included in 35 centers. The mean age was 69 (Standard deviation: 10), 18% had a baseline serum creatinine >1.5mg/dL, 57% were diabetics and 13% had a history of heart failure. The ongoing ACT Trial is the largest multicentre RCT that will determine whether acetylcysteine is effective in decreasing the risk of CIN in patients at risk undergoing angiography.

Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability

Shaun Treweek — 2009-06-03T00:00:00Z

Randomised controlled trials are the best research design for decisions about the effect of different interventions but randomisation does not, of itself, promote the applicability of a trial's results to situations other than the precise one in which the trial was done. While methodologists and trialists have rightly paid great attention to internal validity, much less has been given to applicability.This narrative review is aimed at those planning to conduct trials, and those aiming to use the information in them. It is intended to help the former group make their trials more widely useful and to help the latter group make more informed decisions about the wider use of existing trials. We review the differences between the design of most randomised trials (which have an explanatory attitude) and the design of trials more able to inform decision making (which have a pragmatic attitude) and discuss approaches used to assert applicability of trial results.If we want evidence from trials to be used in clinical practice and policy, trialists should make every effort to make their trial widely applicable, which means that more trials should be pragmatic in attitude.