Search

Introduction: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurogenerative disease with no effective treatment to date. Despite numerous clinical trials, the majority of studies have been futile in their effort to significantly alter the course of the disease. However, these studies may still provide valuable information for identifying patient subgroups and generating new hypotheses for future research. Additionally, synthesising evidence from these studies may help overcome the limitations of individual studies. Network meta-analysis may refine the assessment of efficacy in specific patient subgroups, evaluate intervention characteristics such as mode of administration or biological mechanisms of action, and rank order promising therapeutic areas of interest. Therefore, we aim to synthesise the available evidence from ALS clinical trials., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review to identify all clinical trials that assessed disease-modifying pharmaceutical therapies, cell therapies, or supplements in patients with ALS. Outcomes of interest are clinical disease progression outcomes and survival. We will conduct this search in the period Q4 2024 in three databases: PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from 1999 to 2023. Individual patient data and aggregate data will be collected and subsequentially synthesised in meta-analytical models. The final model will be presented as an open-source web application with biannual updates of the underlying data, thereby providing a 'living' overview of the ALS clinical trial landscape., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approvals are required. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Data will be stored anonymously in secure repositories., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Funding and resources for low prevalent neurodegenerative disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are limited, and optimising their use is vital for efficient drug development. In this study, we review the design assumptions for pivotal ALS clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and provide optimised settings for future trials., Methods: We extracted design settings from 13 completed placebo-controlled trials. Optimal assumptions were estimated using parametric survival models in individual participant data (n=4991). Designs were compared in terms of sample size, trial duration, drug use and costs., Results: Previous trials overestimated the hazard rate by 18.9% (95% CI 3.4% to 34.5%, p=0.021). The median expected HR was 0.56 (range 0.33-0.66). Additionally, we found evidence for an increasing mean hazard rate over time (Weibull shape parameter of 2.03, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.15, p<0.001), which affects the design and planning of future clinical trials. Incorporating accrual time and assuming an increasing hazard rate at the design stage reduced sample size by 33.2% (95% CI 27.9 to 39.4), trial duration by 17.4% (95% CI 11.6 to 23.3), drug use by 14.3% (95% CI 9.6 to 19.0) and follow-up costs by 21.2% (95% CI 15.6 to 26.8)., Conclusions: Implementing distributional knowledge and incorporating accrual at the design stage could achieve large gains in the efficiency of ALS clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. We provide an open-source platform that helps investigators to make more accurate sample size calculations and optimise the use of their available resources., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In order for historical data to be considered for inclusion in the design and analysis of clinical trials, prospective rules are essential. Incorporation of historical data may be of particular interest in the case of small populations where available data is scarce and heterogeneity is not as well understood, and thus conventional methods for evidence synthesis might fall short. The concept of power priors can be particularly useful for borrowing evidence from a single historical study. Power priors employ a parameter γ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] that quantifies the heterogeneity between the historical study and the new study. However, the possibility of borrowing data from a historical trial will usually be associated with an inflation of the type I error. We suggest a new, simple method of estimating the power parameter suitable for the case when only one historical dataset is available. The method is based on predictive distributions and parameterized in such a way that the type I error can be controlled by calibrating to the degree of similarity between the new and historical data. The method is demonstrated for normal responses in a one or two group setting. Generalization to other models is straightforward., (© 2017, The International Biometric Society.)

At the design stage of a clinical trial, several assumptions have to be made. These usually include guesses about parameters that are not of direct interest but must be accounted for in the analysis of the treatment effect and also in the sample size calculation (nuisance parameters, e.g. the standard deviation or the control group event rate). We conducted a systematic review to investigate the impact of misspecification of nuisance parameters in pediatric randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed. We included all publications concerning two-arm RCTs where efficacy assessment was the main objective. We included trials with pharmacological interventions. Only trials with a dichotomous or a continuous outcome were included. This led to the inclusion of 70 articles describing 71 trials. In 49 trial reports a sample size calculation was reported. Relative misspecification could be calculated for 28 trials, 22 with a dichotomous and 6 with a continuous primary outcome. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] overestimation was 6.9 [-12.1, 57.8]% for the control group event rate in trials with dichotomous outcomes and -1.5 [-15.3, 5.1]% for the standard deviation in trials with continuous outcomes. Our results show that there is room for improvement in the clear reporting of sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in ICUs. Researchers should be aware of the importance of nuisance parameters in study design and in the interpretation of the results.