Search

Objectives: To assess the efficacy of exercises in early-stage Parkinson's disease (PD)., Design: Single-blind, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Tertiary rehabilitation care centre., Participants: Forty individuals (≥18 years, either gender) with newly diagnosed PD (Hoehn and Yahr stage ≤2) on a stable dose of PD medications were randomised (1:1) to the intervention group (IG) and control group (CG)., Interventions: The IG received strengthening (30 min/day, 2 days/week), aerobic (30 min/day, 3 days/week) and agility (30 min/day, 2 days/week) exercises in a structured format for 12 weeks. CG received stretching exercises for 12 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) III (motor) at week 12 (primary), UPDRS I (mentation, behaviour and mood), UPDRS II and VI (Schwab and England Activities of daily living Scale) and Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life (PDQL) at week 12 (secondary)., Results: 36 participants completed 12-week study period. UPDRS III (lesser scores reflect improvement) at 12 weeks showed a significant between-group difference (-5.05 points (95% CI: -9.38 to -0.71), p=0.02). At 4 and 8 weeks, UPDRS III did not show a statistically significant between-group difference (-2.15 points (95% CI: -6.77 to 2.47) and -4.1 points (95% CI: -8.54 to 0.34), respectively). From baseline to 12 weeks, UPDRS III in the IG showed a 6.5-point (95% CI (4.85 to 8.14)) reduction, and the CG showed a 0.8-point increase (95% CI (-3.06 to 1.46)), PDQL (higher scores reflect improvement) in the IG showed a 8.45-point (95% CI (-12.78 to -4.11)) increase and CG showed a 2.75-point (95% CI (0.16 to 5.33)) reduction., Conclusions: Structured exercises improve motor symptoms and quality of life in early-stage PD. Consistent adherence for at least 12 weeks is crucial for clinical improvement. Early initiation of exercises as neurorehabilitation is recommended. Further research on specific types, dosing and intensity of exercises with a larger sample size is warranted in early-stage PD., Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2018/05/014241., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The aim of this review was to carry out primary and secondary analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid artery stenting (CAS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 20 RCTs (126 publications) was carried out. Compared with CEA, the 30 day death/stroke rate was significantly higher after CAS in seven RCTs involving 3467 asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.64) and in 10 RCTs involving 5797 symptomatic patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38–2.11). Excluding procedural risks, late ipsilateral stroke was about 4% at 9 years for both CEA and CAS, i.e., CAS was durable. Reducing procedural death/stroke after CAS may be achieved through better case selection, e.g., performing CEA in (i) symptomatic patients aged > 70 years; (ii) interventions within 14 days of symptom onset; and (iii) situations where stroke risk after CAS is predicted to be higher (segmental/remote plaques, plaque length > 13 mm, heavy burden of white matter lesions [WMLs], where two or more stents might be needed). New WMLs were significantly more common after CAS (52% vs. 17%) and were associated with higher rates of late stroke/transient ischaemic attack (23% vs. 9%), but there was no evidence that new WMLs predisposed towards late cognitive impairment. Restenoses were more common after CAS (10%) but did not increase late ipsilateral stroke. Restenoses (70%–99%) after CEA were associated with a small but significant increase in late ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.96–7.67; p <.001). CAS confers higher rates of 30 day death/stroke than CEA. After 30 days, ipsilateral stroke is virtually identical for CEA and CAS. Key issues to be resolved include the following: (i) Will newer stent technologies and improved cerebral protection allow CAS to be performed < 14 days after symptom onset with risks similar to CEA? (ii) What is the optimal volume of CAS procedures to maintain competency? (iii) How to deliver better risk factor control and best medical treatment? (iv) Is there a role for CEA/CAS in preventing/reversing cognitive impairment? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Impairment of mental well-being (anxiety, depression, stress) is common among people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Treatment options are limited, particularly for anxiety. The aim of this study was to update our previous systematic review (2014) and evaluate via meta-analysis the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for improving mental well-being in PwMS.Methods: Systematic searches for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were carried out in seven major databases (November 2017, July 2018), using medical subject headings and key words. Studies were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two independent reviewers, using predefined criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Mental well-being was the primary outcome. Random effects model meta-analysis was performed, with effect size reported as standardised mean difference (SMD).Results: Twelve RCTs including 744 PwMS were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, eight had data extractable for meta-analysis; n=635. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, comorbidity and disability were inconsistently reported. MBIs varied from manualised to tailored versions, lasting 6-9 weeks, delivered individually and via groups, both in person and online. Overall SMD for mental well-being (eight studies) was 0.40 (0.28-0.53), p<0.01, I2=28%; against active comparators only (three studies) SMD was 0.17 (0.01-0.32), p<0.05, I2 =0%. Only three adverse events were reported.Conclusions: MBIs are effective at improving mental well-being in PwMS. More research is needed regarding optimal delivery method, cost-effectiveness and comparative-effectiveness.Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018093171. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcomes in a clinical trial can be affected by any underlying preferences that its participants have for the treatments under comparison and by whether they actually receive their preferred treatment. These effects cannot be evaluated in standard trial designs but are estimable in the alternative two-stage randomised trial design, in which some patients can choose their treatment, while the rest are randomly assigned. We have previously shown that, when all two-stage trial participants have a preferred treatment, the preference effects can be evaluated, in addition to the usual direct effect of treatment. We also determined criteria by which to optimise how many participants should be given a choice of treatment vs being randomised. More recently, we extended our methodology to allow for participants who are unable or unwilling to express a treatment preference if they are assigned to the choice group. In this paper, we show how to optimise the two-stage design when some participants are undecided about their treatment. We demonstrate that the undecided group should be regarded as distinct in the analysis, to obtain valid estimates of the preference effects. We derive the optimal proportion of participants who should be offered a choice of treatment, which in many cases will be close to 50%. More generally, the optima depend on the preference rates for treatments and the proportion of undecided participants, and the parameters of primary interest. We discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the two-stage trial design in this situation and describe a practical example. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to explore the methods, reporting and transparency of clinical trials in orthodontics and compare them to the field of periodontics, as a standard within dentistry. Cross-sectional bibliographic study A total of 300 trials published in 2017–2018 and evenly distributed in orthodontics and periodontics were selected, assessed and analysed statistically to explore key aspects of the conduct and reporting of orthodontic clinical trials compared to trials in periodontics. Several aspects are often neglected in orthodontic and periodontic trials and could be improved upon, including use of statistical expertise (22.3% of assessed trials), blinding of outcome assessors (62.3%), prospective trial registration (12.0%), adequate sample size calculation (35.7%), adherence to CONSORT (14.3%) and open data sharing (4.3%). The prevalence of statistically significant findings among orthodontic and periodontic trials was 62.3%, which was significantly associated with several methodological traits like statistician involvement (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3–0.9), blind outcome assessor (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.2–1.0), lack of prospective trial registration (OR = 2.8; 95% CI = 1.3–5.9) and non-adherence to CONSORT (OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.3–15.8). Although trials in orthodontics seem to be significantly worse compared to periodontics in aspects like trial registration, adherence to CONSORT and declaration of competing interests or financial support, their methods do seem to have improved considerably in recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To investigate cardiovascular disease and mortality trends in control arm participants of diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs).Methods: We electronically searched CVOTs published before October 2017. Data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and events, and baseline characteristics were collected, along with study calendar years. Trends were estimated using negative binomial regressions and reported as rate ratio (RR) per 5-year intervals.Results: 26 CVOTs, conducted from 1961 to 2015, included 86788 participants with 6543 all-cause deaths, 3265 cardiovascular deaths, and 7657 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3-P MACE; combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke). In unadjusted analysis, there was an increasing trend for 3-P MACE rates over time (5-year RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.34, 1.84); a small increasing trend for cardiovascular disease mortality rates (1.13; 1.01, 1.26); and stable rates for all-cause death. Adjusting for age, sex, previous myocardial infarction, and diabetes duration, there was no evidence of trends for 3-P MACE or cardiovascular disease mortality rates, while reducing rates were observed for nonfatal myocardial infarction (5-year RR: 0.72; 0.54, 0.96), total stroke (0.76; 0.66, 0.88), and nonfatal stroke (0.60; 0.43, 0.82).Conclusions: In contrast to real-world data, there was no evidence of an improvement in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes participants included in control arms of randomised clinical trials across 5 decades. Further studies should investigate whether and how dissimilarities in populations, procedures, and assessments of exposures and outcomes explain the differences between real-world setting and clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete and timely publication of clinical trials ensures that patients and the medical community are fully informed when making treatment decisions. The aim of this study is to assess the publication of phase III and IV clinical trials on multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs that have been carried out between 2010 and 2019 and to identify the factors associated with their publication in peer-reviewed journals., Methods: An advanced search in ClinicalTrials.gov was performed and consecutive searches in PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were conducted looking for the associated publications of all completed trials. Study design characteristics, results and other relevant information were extracted. Data was analysed following a case-control design. Clinical trials with associated publications in peer-reviewed journals were the cases and unpublished trials were the controls. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with trial publication., Results: One hundred and fifty clinical trials were included in the analysis. Ninety-six of them (64.0%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with trial publication were a favourable primary outcome (OR 12.49, 95% CI 1.28 to 122.29) and reaching the originally estimated sample size (OR 41.97, 95% CI 1.96 to 900.48), while those associated with a lower odds of publication were having 20% or more patients lost to follow-up (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52) and evaluating drugs intended to improve treatment tolerability (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74)., Conclusions: Phase III and IV clinical trials on MS drugs are prone to under-reporting and publication bias. Efforts must be made to promote a complete and accurate dissemination of data in MS clinical research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Most analyses of randomised trials with incomplete outcomes make untestable assumptions and should therefore be subjected to sensitivity analyses. However, methods for sensitivity analyses are not widely used. We propose a mean score approach for exploring global sensitivity to departures from missing at ran- dom or other assumptions about incomplete outcome data in a randomised trial. We assume a single outcome analysed under a generalised linear model. One or more sensitivity parameters, specified by the user, measure the degree of departure from missing at random in a pattern mixture model. Advantages of our method are that its sensitivity parameters are relatively easy to interpret and so can be elicited from subject matter experts; it is fast and non-stochastic; and its point estimate, standard error and confidence interval agree perfectly with standard methods when particular values of the sensitivity parameters make those standard methods ap- propriate. We illustrate the method using data from a mental health trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the redactions in contemporary protocols for industry-sponsored randomised drug trials with patient relevant outcomes and to evaluate whether there was a legitimate rationale for the redactions. Design: Cohort study. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we requested access to trial protocols approved by a research ethics committee in Denmark from October 2012 to March 2013. We received 17 consecutive protocols, which had been redacted before we got them, and nine protocols without redactions. In five additional cases, the companies refused to let the committees give us access, and in three other cases, documents were missing. Participants: Not applicable. Setting: Not applicable. Main outcome measure: Amount and nature of redactions in 22 predefined key protocol variables. Results: The redactions were most widespread in those sections of the protocol where there is empirical evidence of substantial problems with the trustworthiness of published drug trials: data analysis, handling of missing data, detection and analysis of adverse events, definition of the outcomes, interim analyses and premature termination of the study, sponsor's access to incoming data while the study is running, ownership to the data and investigators' publication rights. The parts of the text that were redacted differed widely, both between companies and within the same company. Conclusions: We could not identify any legitimate rationale for the redactions. The current mistrust in industrysponsored drug trials can only change if the industry offers unconditional access to its trial protocols and other relevant documents and data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Loss to follow-up (attrition) is a frequent problem in clinical trials and can introduce bias or reduce power. So, understanding retention issues and strategies to address these are important. As part of a multi-method project, this qualitative study aimed to explore retention strategies used by trial teams and factors which may influence strategy adoption.Method: A purposive sample of active trials was selected from the UK NIHR HTA portfolio of ongoing trials in 2014/2015. Semi-structured interviews with several trial team members from each trial and supplementary interviews with experienced trial managers explored strategies in collecting clinical outcome data and retaining participants. Interview data were analysed thematically using techniques of constant comparison.Results: Twenty-two semi-structured interviews with trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, nurses and research administrators revealed strategies used to enhance retention. Some were recognised methods and planned from trial outset whilst others were implemented more responsively. Interviewees placed great value on fostering positive relationships with trial participants to enhance retention. However, these strategies took time which was not always appreciated by the wider trial team or funding bodies. The national focus on recruitment targets in networks posed a challenge to staff and was deemed detrimental to retention. The 'moral compass' of individual researchers relied on their own beliefs and values and research experience and the factors affected their confidence to pursue participant data during follow-up.Conclusion: The role of trial staff and their underlying behaviours influence retention practices and, combined with emphasis on recruitment targets, can be detrimental to motivation and retention activities. There is a need to consider how to train and support trial staff involved in retention practices and recognition of retention from funding bodies and oversight organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Failure to include socio-economically deprived or ethnic minority groups in physical activity (PA) trials may limit representativeness and could lead to implementation of interventions that then increase health inequalities. Randomised intervention trials often have low recruitment rates and rarely assess recruitment bias. A previous trial by the same team using similar methods recruited 30% of the eligible population but was in an affluent setting with few non-white residents and was limited to those over 60 years of age.Methods: PACE-UP is a large, effective, population-based walking trial in inactive 45-75 year-olds that recruited through seven London general practices. Anonymised practice demographic data were available for all those invited, enabling investigation of inequalities in trial recruitment. Non-participants were invited to complete a questionnaire.Results: From 10,927 postal invitations, 1150 (10.5%) completed baseline assessment. Participation rate ratios (95% CI), adjusted for age and gender as appropriate, were lower in men 0.59 (0.52, 0.67) than women, in those under 55 compared with those ≥65, 0.60 (0.51, 0.71), in the most deprived quintile compared with the least deprived 0.52 (0.39, 0.70) and in Asian individuals compared with whites 0.62 (0.50, 0.76). Black individuals were equally likely to participate as white individuals. Participation was also associated with having a co-morbidity or some degree of health limitation. The most common reasons for non-participation were considering themselves as being too active or lack of time.Conclusions: Conducting the trial in this diverse setting reduced overall response, with lower response in socio-economically deprived and Asian sub-groups. Trials with greater reach are likely to be more expensive in terms of recruitment and gains in generalizability need to be balanced with greater costs. Differential uptake of successful trial interventions may increase inequalities in PA levels and should be monitored.Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN98538934 . Registered 2nd March 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rich meta-epidemiological data sets have been collected to explore associations between intervention effect estimates and study-level characteristics. Welton et al proposed models for the analysis of meta-epidemiological data, but these models are restrictive because they force heterogeneity among studies with a particular characteristic to be at least as large as that among studies without the characteristic. In this paper we present alternative models that are invariant to the labels defining the 2 categories of studies. To exemplify the methods, we use a collection of meta-analyses in which the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool has been implemented. We first investigate the influence of small trial sample sizes (less than 100 participants), before investigating the influence of multiple methodological flaws (inadequate or unclear sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding). We fit both the Welton et al model and our proposed label-invariant model and compare the results. Estimates of mean bias associated with the trial characteristics and of between-trial variances are not very sensitive to the choice of model. Results from fitting a univariable model show that heterogeneity variance is, on average, 88% greater among trials with less than 100 participants. On the basis of a multivariable model, heterogeneity variance is, on average, 25% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear sequence generation, 51% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear blinding, and 23% lower among trials with inadequate/unclear allocation concealment, although the 95% intervals for these ratios are very wide. Our proposed label-invariant models for meta-epidemiological data analysis facilitate investigations of between-study heterogeneity attributable to certain study characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results.Methods: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories.Results: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%).Conclusions: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trials of surgical procedures in the treatment of malignant disease face a unique set of challenges. This review aimed to describe recommendations for the design, delivery and reporting of randomised trials in surgical oncology. A literature search was carried out without date limits to identify articles related to trial methodology research in surgery and surgical oncology. A narrative review was framed around two open National Institute of Health Research portfolio trials in colon and rectal cancer: the STAR-TREC trial (ISRCTN14240288) and the ROCCS trial (ISRCTN46330337). Twelve specific challenges were highlighted: standardisation of technique; pilot and feasibility studies; balancing treatments; the recruitment pathway; outcome measures; patient and public representation; trainee-led networks; randomisation; novel techniques and training; learning curves; blinding; follow-up. Evidence-based recommendations were made for the future design and conduct of surgical oncology trials. Better understanding of the challenges facing trials in the surgical treatment of cancer will accelerate high-quality evaluation and rapid adoption of innovation for the benefit of patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The spectacular outcomes of the phase III trials regarding nivolumab versus ipilimumab in fully resected stage IIIB/C–IV and of the combination of dabrafenib (D) plus trametinib (T) in BRAF-mutant stage III patients demonstrate that effective treatments in advanced melanoma are also highly effective in the adjuvant setting. In 2016, an overall survival benefit with adjuvant high-dose ipilimumab was demonstrated, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 1325 comparing pembrolizumab versus placebo will complete the picture in the early 2018. Toxicity profiles are in line with the experience in advanced melanoma, i.e. favourable for the anti-PD1 agents and for D + T and problematic for ipilimumab. The 2017 outcomes are practice changing and put an end to the use of interferon (IFN) and ipilimumab. In countries with only access to IFN, its use can be restricted to patients with ulcerated melanoma, based on the individual patient data meta-analysis recently published. Because of the results of the Melanoma Sentinel Lymph node Trial-2 (MSLT-2) trial, completion lymph node dissection (CLND) will decrease sharply, leading to a lack of optimal prognostic information. Prognosis in sentinel node–positive stage IIIA/B patients is extremely heterogeneous with 5-year survival rates varying from 90% to 40% and depends mostly on the number of positive nodes identified by CLND. This information is crucial for clinical decision-making. How to guarantee optimal staging information needs to be discussed urgently. Further improvements of adjuvant therapies will have to address all these questions as well as the exploration of neoadjuvant use of active drugs and combination approaches. Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: adults aged ≥65 years are often excluded from health research studies. Lack of representation reduces gener-alisability of treatments for this age group. Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that improve recruitment and retention of adults aged ≥65 in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: searches conducted in 10 databases for RCTs of recruitment and retention strategies in RCTs or observational studies. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility and extracted data. Studies without separate data for adults aged ≥65 were discarded. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results were synthe-sised narratively. Results: thirty-two studies were included in the review (n = 75,444). Twelve studies had low risk of bias, of which 10 had successful strategies including: Opt-out versus opt-in increased recruitment (13.6% (n = 261)-18.7% (n = 36) difference; two studies); Advance notification increased retention (1.6% difference, OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.01, 2.10, one study (n = 2,686); 9.1% difference at 4 months, 1.44; 1.08, 1.92, one study (n = 753)); Hand-delivered versus postal surveys increased response (25.1% difference; χ² = 11.40, P < 0.01; one study (n = 139)); Open randomised design versus blinded RCT increased recruitment (1.56; 1.05, 2.33) and retention (13.9% difference; 3.1%, 24.6%) in one study (n = 538). Risk of bias was high/ unclear for studies in which incentives or shorter length questionnaires increased response. Discussion: in low risk of bias studies, few of the strategies that improved participation in older adults had been tested in ≥1 study. Opt-out and advance notification strategies improved recruitment and retention, respectively, although an opt-out approach may have ethical limitations. Evidence from single studies limits the generalisability of other strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is to slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcomes for patients diagnosed with early breast cancer in developed countries have improved substantially over recent decades. Adjuvant therapies have contributed to this improvement and their benefits have been confirmed in large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Lower event rates, whilst welcome, have created problems for RCTs, that need to be larger and often take longer to provide a reliable result. In an effort to maintain the rate of progress and to obviate the complexity, cost and time required to conduct large RCTs, there has been an increased tendency to rely on observational data to determine a treatment effect and also to accelerate progress by the use of a surrogate marker (pathological complete remission after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). We highlight the pitfalls in these approaches and suggest some simplifications in the conduct of RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The era of precision oncology is marked with prominent successes in the therapy of advanced soft tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and haematological neoplasms, among others. Moreover, recent trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, and head and neck cancers have significantly influenced the therapeutic landscape by providing promising evidence for immunotherapy efficacy in the adjuvant setting in high-risk locoregional disease. To speed up the introduction of targeted therapy for cancer patients, novel phase II trials are being designed, and may likely form the basis for the 'landmark trials' of the future. A special article collection in BMC Medicine, "Spotlight on landmark oncology trials", features articles from invited experts on recent clinical practice-changing trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) are typically viewed as the gold standard for causal inference. This is because effects of interest can be identified with the fewest assumptions, especially imbalance in background characteristics. Yet because conducting RCTs are expensive, time consuming and sometimes unethical, observational studies are frequently used to study causal associations. In these studies, imbalance, or confounding, is usually controlled with multiple regression, which entails strong assumptions. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe strengths and weaknesses of several methods to control for confounding in observational studies, and to demonstrate their use in cross-sectional dataset that use patient registration data from the Juan Pablo II Primary Care Clinic in La Pintana-Chile. The dataset contains responses from 5855 families who provided complete information on family socio-demographics, family functioning and health problems among their family members. We employ regression adjustment, stratification, restriction, matching, propensity score matching, standardisation and inverse probability weighting to illustrate the approaches to better causal inference in non-experimental data and compare results. By applying study design and data analysis techniques that control for confounding in different ways than regression adjustment, researchers may strengthen the scientific relevance of observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the two-stage randomised trial design, a randomly sampled subset of study participants are permitted to choose their own treatment, while the remaining participants are randomised to treatment in the usual way. Appropriate analysis of the data from both arms of the study allows investigators to estimate the impact on study outcomes of treatment preferences that patients may have, in addition to evaluating the usual direct effect of treatment. In earlier work, we showed how to optimise this design by making a suitable choice of the proportion of participants who should be assigned to the choice arm of the trial. However, we ignored the possibility of some participants being indifferent to the treatments under study. In this paper, we extend our earlier work to consider the analysis of two-stage randomised trials when some participants have no treatment preference, even if they are assigned to the choice arm and allowed to choose.Methods: We compare alternative characterisations of the response profiles of the indifferent or undecided participants, and derive estimates of the treatment and preference effects on study outcomes. We also present corresponding test statistics for these parameters. The methods are illustrated with data from a clinical trial contrasting medical and surgical interventions.Results: Expressions are obtained to estimate and test the impact of treatment choices on study outcomes, as well as the impact of the actual treatment received. Contrasts are defined between patients with stated treatment preferences and those with no preference. Alternative assumptions concerning the outcomes of undecided participants are described, and an approach leading to unbiased estimation and testing is identified.Conclusions: Use of the two-stage design can provide important insights into determinants of study outcomes that are not identifiable with other designs. The design can remain attractive even in the presence of participants with no stated treatment preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatments under comparison in a randomised trial should ideally have equal value and acceptability - a position of equipoise - to study participants. However, it is unlikely that true equipoise exists in practice, because at least some participants may have preferences for one treatment or the other, for a variety of reasons. These preferences may be related to study outcomes, and hence affect the estimation of the treatment effect. Furthermore, the effects of preferences can sometimes be substantial, and may even be larger than the direct effect of treatment. Preference effects are of interest in their own right, but they cannot be assessed in the standard parallel group design for a randomised trial. In this paper, we describe a model to represent the impact of preferences on trial outcomes, in addition to the usual treatment effect. In particular, we describe how outcomes might differ between participants who would choose one treatment or the other, if they were free to do so. Additionally, we investigate the difference in outcomes depending on whether or not a participant receives his or her preferred treatment, which we characterise through a so-called preference effect. We then discuss several study designs that have been proposed to measure and exploit data on preferences, and which constitute alternatives to the conventional parallel group design. Based on the model framework, we determine which of the various preference effects can or cannot be estimated with each design. We also illustrate these ideas with some examples of preference designs from the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Rapid Intervention with Glyceryl Trinitrate in Hypertensive Stroke Trial-2 (RIGHT-2) reported no overall treatment difference between glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) and sham at day 90. Here we assess participants' outcomes 1 year after randomisation., Methods: RIGHT-2 was an ambulance-based prospective randomised controlled trial where patients with presumed stroke and systolic blood pressure (BP) of >120 mm Hg received either GTN (5 mg/day) or sham patch. Centralised blinded telephone follow-up was performed at days 90 (primary endpoint) and 365 (secondary endpoint). The lead outcome was dependency assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS)., Results: 1149 patients were recruited to RIGHT-2 between October 2015 and May 2018, and 1097 (95.5%) had outcome data recorded at day 365. At baseline, the patients were; female (48%), had a mean age of 73 (15) years, BP of 162 (25)/92 (18) mm Hg, onset to randomisation of 70 (45-115) min, diagnosis of ischaemic stroke (52%), intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (13%), transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (9%) and mimics (26%). There was no effect of GTN on mRS score at day 365 in participants with confirmed stroke/TIA (adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42) or in all patients. In patients randomised to GTN, mRS at day 365 tended to be worse in those with ICH (acOR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.25) and better in those with a mimic diagnosis (acOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84)., Conclusion: At 1 year post randomisation, dependency did not differ between GTN and sham treatment in either the target population or overall. In prespecified subgroup analyses, GTN was associated with reduced dependency in participants with a final diagnosis of mimic and a non-significant worse outcome in participants with ICH., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN26986053., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Neuralgic amyotrophy (NA) is an acute inflammation of nerves within the brachial plexus territory leading to severe pain and multifocal paresis resulting in >60% of patients having residual complaints and functional limitations correlated with scapular dyskinesia. Our primary aim was to compare the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MR), focused on motor relearning to improve scapular dyskinesia and self-management strategies for reducing pain and fatigue, with usual care (UC) on shoulder, arm and hand functional capability in patients with NA., Methods: In a non-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT), patients with NA (aged≥18 years, scapular dyskinesia, >8 weeks after onset) were randomised to either an MR or an UC group. MR consisted of a diagnostic multidisciplinary consultation and eight sessions of physical and occupational therapy. Primary outcome was functional capability of the shoulder, arm and hand assessed with the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version (SRQ-DLV)., Results: We included 47 patients with NA; due to drop-out, there were 22 participants in MR and 15 in UC for primary analysis. The mean group difference adjusted for sex, age and SRQ-DLV baseline score was 8.60 (95%CI: 0.26 to 16.94, p=0.044). The proportion attaining a minimal clinically relevant SRQ-DLV improvement (≥12) was larger for the MR group (59%) than the UC group (33%) with a number needed to treat of 4., Conclusion: This RCT shows that an MR programme focused on motor relearning to improve scapular dyskinesia, combined with self-management strategies for reducing pain and fatigue, shows more beneficial effects on shoulder, arm and hand functional capability than UC in patients with NA., Trial Registration Number: NCT03441347., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: It is important that planned randomised trials are justified and placed in the context of the available evidence. The SPIRIT guidelines for reporting clinical trial protocols recommend that a recent and relevant systematic review should be included. The aim of this study was to assess the use of the existing evidence in order to justify trial conduct. Methods: Protocols of randomised trials published over a 1-month period (December 2015) indexed in PubMed were obtained. Data on trial characteristics relating to location, design, funding, conflict of interest and type of evidence included for trial justification was extracted in duplicate and independently by two investigators. The frequency of citation of previous research including relevant systematic reviews and randomised trials was assessed. Results: Overall, 101 protocols for RCTs were identified. Most proposed trials were parallel-group (n = 74; 73.3%). Reference to an earlier systematic review with additional randomised trials was found in 9.9% (n = 10) of protocols and without additional trials in 30.7% (n = 31), while reference was made to randomised trials in isolation in 21.8% (n = 22). Explicit justification for the proposed randomised trial on the basis of being the first to address the research question was made in 17.8% (n = 18) of protocols. A randomised controlled trial was not cited in 10.9% (95% CI: 5.6, 18.7) (n = 11), while in 8.9% (95% CI: 4.2, 16.2) (n = 9) of the protocols a systematic review was cited but did not inform trial design. Conclusions: A relatively high percentage of protocols of randomised trials involves prior citation of randomised trials, systematic reviews or both. However, improvements are required to ensure that it is explicit that clinical trials are justified and shaped by contemporary best evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently reported significant prolongation of overall survival with ipilimumab as adjuvant in high-risk stage III melanoma patients represents an important event in the adjuvant treatment landscape. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial demonstrated a 28% reduction in risk of death in patients treated with ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95.1% CI, 0.58−0.88; P = 0.001) compared with placebo. All end-points—recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant-metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS)—showed similar benefits. Survival rates at 5 years in ipilimumab-treated patients were OS 11%, DMFS 9% and RFS 11% higher than in placebo-treated patients. Global Health quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between treatment arms, in spite of significant adverse event rates that resulted in only 42% of patients receiving more than four doses of ipilimumab and only 28.9% of patients going beyond 1 year of treatment. Grades 3–4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 41.6% of ipilimumab-treated patients and in 2.7% of placebo-treated patients. One can speculate on dose and duration of treatment, as well as on the requirement for complete lymph-node dissection in sentinel-node-positive patients. The remaining role of interferons will be discussed regarding differences in sensitivity profiles—such as in ulcerated melanoma versus non-ulcerated melanoma—and access to new drugs. Ongoing trials with targeted agents and with anti programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) agents may bring significant additional results in the next few years that will redefine how we treat stage III patients. Overall, pricing of new treatments will determine access and whether patients will actually benefit from new treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incomplete reporting of components of interventions limits uptake of evidence into clinical practice.Aims: To evaluate the completeness of reporting of research and control interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies for children with unilateral cerebral palsy.Methods and Procedures: Sixty randomized trials were included, encompassing 60 research and 68 control interventions. Using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, two reviewers independently rated intervention and control descriptions.Outcomes and Results: When using 50% of studies as the benchmark, five of the 12 TIDieR items for the research intervention, eight of the 12 items for the control intervention and 11 of 12 items for "usual care" interventions were inadequately reported. Procedures used to deliver the research intervention were adequately reported for 63% of studies. Materials were used in 94% of research interventions, yet only 27% provided details to access/replicate materials. Training materials for interventionists were used in 38% of trials, 10 (17%) had procedure manuals, yet only 3 reported details to access materials. The location where the research intervention was provided was detailed in 65% of studies. Reporting of all items was poorer for the control intervention.Conclusions: No study adequately reported all elements on the TIDieR checklist. Details crucial for replication of interventions and interpretation of results were missing. Authors, reviewers, and editors all have a responsibility to improve the quality of intervention reporting in published trials. The TIDieR guide is a potential solution, helping to structure accounts of interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How should we approach trial design when we can get some, but not all, of the way to the numbers required for a randomised phase III trial? We present an ordered framework for designing randomised trials to address the problem when the ideal sample size is considered larger than the number of participants that can be recruited in a reasonable time frame. Staying with the frequentist approach that is well accepted and understood in large trials, we propose a framework that includes small alterations to the design parameters. These aim to increase the numbers achievable and also potentially reduce the sample size target. The first step should always be to attempt to extend collaborations, consider broadening eligibility criteria and increase the accrual time or follow-up time. The second set of ordered considerations are the choice of research arm, outcome measures, power and target effect. If the revised design is still not feasible, in the third step we propose moving from two- to one-sided significance tests, changing the type I error rate, using covariate information at the design stage, re-randomising patients and borrowing external information. We discuss the benefits of some of these possible changes and warn against others. We illustrate, with a worked example based on the Euramos-1 trial, the application of this framework in designing a trial that is feasible, while still providing a good evidence base to evaluate a research treatment. This framework would allow appropriate evaluation of treatments when large-scale phase III trials are not possible, but where the need for high-quality randomised data is as pressing as it is for common diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been too much of a one-way flow drift down a river of evidence. Researchers from rich countries have produced the primary evidence which they proceed to summarise within reviews. These summaries have directed care worldwide. However, things are changing and the river of evidence can flow in the other direction. The care of women with eclampsia has been changed or refined throughout the world because of a large low and middle income country trial. The global care of people with heart disease has been greatly modified by studies originating in China. The care of people who are acutely aggressive because of psychosis has to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence coming from Brazil and India. Healthcare is an issue everywhere and evaluation of care is not the premise of any one culture—the evidence—river must run both ways

Different metabolic pathways of supplemental and fortification Fe, or inhibition of Zn absorption by Fe, may explain adverse effects of supplemental Fe in Fe-sufficient infants. We determined whether the mode of oral Fe administration or the amount habitually consumed affects Fe absorption and systemic Fe utilisation in infants, and assessed the effects of these interventions on Zn absorption, Fe and Zn status, and growth. Fe-sufficient 6-month-old infants (n 72) were randomly assigned to receive 6·6 mg Fe/d from a high-Fe formula, 1·3 mg Fe/d from a low-Fe formula or 6·6 mg Fe/d from Fe drops and a formula with no added Fe for 45 d. Fractional Fe absorption, Fe utilisation and fractional Zn absorption were measured with oral (57Fe and 67Zn) and intravenous (58Fe and 70Zn) isotopes. Fe and Zn status, infection and growth were measured. At 45 d, Hb was 6·3 g/l higher in the high-Fe formula group compared with the Fe drops group, whereas serum ferritin was 34 and 35 % higher, respectively, and serum transferrin 0·1 g/l lower in the high-Fe formula and Fe drops groups compared with the low-Fe formula group (all P<0·05). No intervention effects were observed on Fe absorption, Fe utilisation, Zn absorption, other Fe status indices, plasma Zn or growth. We concluded that neither supplemental or fortification Fe nor the amount of Fe habitually consumed altered Fe absorption, Fe utilisation, Zn absorption, Zn status or growth in Fe-sufficient infants. Consumption of low-Fe formula as the only source of Fe was insufficient to maintain Fe stores. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To review publications in Clinical Rehabilitation over the last 30 years, discerning the original goals and whether they were met, and describing major trends over the 30 years. Methods: Personal review, backed up by data from ‘most read’ articles and ‘most cited’ articles, from yearly lists of all controlled trials published in the journal and other sources. Results: The original goals included making rehabilitation better understood both within and outside the speciality, and more scientific. The first goal is probably not achieved, but the scientific standard of publication is much higher and it routinely recommends the use of guidelines appropriate to the publication. The journal has established a pre-eminent position in publishing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and articles on goal-setting. It has developed a series describing rehabilitation interventions. It aims to increase consideration of the theoretical basis of rehabilitation practices. We would like to think its impact has increased – but we cannot prove that! Conclusion: The journal has established some credentials as being a source of clinically relevant evidence and guidance across the whole field of rehabilitation and across most disabling conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective reporting is included as a core domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. There has been no evaluation of review authors' use of this domain. We aimed to evaluate assessments of selective reporting in a cross-section of Cochrane reviews and to outline areas for improvement. Methods: We obtained data on selective reporting judgements for 8434 studies included in 586 Cochrane reviews published from issue 1-8, 2015. One author classified the reasons for judgements of high risk of selective reporting bias. We randomly selected 100 reviews with at least one trial rated at high risk of outcome non-reporting bias (non-/partial reporting of an outcome on the basis of its results). One author recorded whether the authors of these reviews incorporated the selective reporting assessment when interpreting results. Results: Of the 8434 studies, 1055 (13 %) were rated at high risk of bias on the selective reporting domain. The most common reason was concern about outcome non-reporting bias. Few studies were rated at high risk because of concerns about bias in selection of the reported result (e.g. reporting of only a subset of measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data that were pre-specified). Review authors often specified in the risk of bias tables the study outcomes that were not reported (84 % of studies) but less frequently specified the outcomes that were partially reported (61 % of studies). At least one study was rated at high risk of outcome non-reporting bias in 31 % of reviews. In the random sample of these reviews, only 30 % incorporated this information when interpreting results, by acknowledging that the synthesis of an outcome was missing data that were not/partially reported. Conclusions: Our audit of user practice in Cochrane reviews suggests that the assessment of selective reporting in the current risk of bias tool does not work well. It is not always clear which outcomes were selectively reported or what the corresponding risk of bias is in the synthesis with missing outcome data. New tools that will make it easier for reviewers to convey this information are being developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials oversight by a Trial Steering Committee (TSC) is mandated by Good Clinical Practice. This study used qualitative methods to explore the role and valued attributes of the TSC to inform planned updates of Medical Research Council guidance and TSC terms of reference.Methods: An ethnographic study was conducted during 2013-2014. TSC and Trial Management Group meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and semi-structured interviews conducted with purposively sampled key informants: independent and non-independent TSC members, trial sponsor representatives, funder representatives and chief investigators. The selected trials were currently recruiting and dealing with challenging scenarios. Data were analysed thematically and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of the role and valued attributes of a TSC.Results: Eight TSC meetings and six Trial Management Group meetings were observed. Sixty-five interviews were conducted with 51 informants. The two main roles played by the TSC were quality assurance and patient advocacy. Quality assurance involved being a 'critical friend' or a provider of 'tough love'. Factors influencing the ability of the TSC to fulfil this role included the TSC Chair, other independent TSC members and the model of the TSC and its fit with the trial subject. The role of the TSC as an advocate for patient well-being was perceived as paramount. Two attributes of TSC members emerged as critical: experience (of running a trial, trial oversight or in a clinical/methodological area) and independence. While independence was valued for giving impartiality, the lack of consensus about its definition and strict requirements of some funders made it difficult to operationalise.Conclusions: We found tensions and ambiguities in the roles expected of TSCs and the attributes valued of TSC members. In particular, the requirements of independence and experience could conflict, impacting the TSCs' quality assurance role. Concerns were raised regarding whose interests are served by funders' criteria of independence; in particular, funders' selection of TSC members was thought to potentially inhibit TSCs' ability to fulfil their patient advocacy role. These findings should be incorporated in revising guidance and terms of reference for TSCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims International collaboration allows for enhanced accrual and more generalisable results of phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The impact of geographic region on the outcomes of new anticancer agents is unclear. Materials and methods International RCTs evaluating approved systemic therapy for advanced solid tumours that reported efficacy of new anticancer drugs based on geographic regions were eligible. Data for overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled in a meta-analysis. The primary analysis was the comparison of developed versus developing countries. A meta-regression analysis explored the impact of differences in gross national income (GNI) per capita on the hazard ratio comparing developed and developing countries. Secondary analyses compared geographic regions irrespective of GNI. Results Of the 63 identified studies, 12 independent RCTs were eligible; five reported data for OS and nine for PFS. Improvements in overall survival were greater in developed as compared with developing countries (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68–0.99, P = 0.04). This effect was seen only among studies of cytotoxic chemotherapy and not among those of targeted agents. No difference was seen for PFS (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79–1.09, P = 0.36). Meta-regression showed a significant negative association between GNI per capita and overall survival, but a non-significant negative association with PFS (β = –0.774, P = 0.05 and β = –0.211, P = 0.29, respectively). No differences were observed in PFS between Asian and non-Asian countries or North America and Western Europe. Conclusion Compared with patients from developing countries, those from developed countries derive greater improvement in overall survival from cytotoxic chemotherapy, but similar benefit from targeted drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experimental studies to test interventions for people living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries are essential to ensure appropriate and effective clinical care. The implications of study participation on outcome data in such populations have been discussed theoretically, but rarely empirically examined. We aimed to explore the effects of participating in a randomised controlled trial conducted in an HIV clinic in Mombasa, Kenya. We report qualitative data from the Treatment Outcomes in Palliative Care trial, which evaluated the impact of a nurse-led palliative care intervention for HIV positive adults on antiretroviral therapy compared to standard care. Participants in both arms attended five monthly quantitative data collection appointments. Post-trial exit, 10 control and 20 intervention patients participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, analysed using thematic analysis. We found benefit attributed to the compassion of the research team, social support, communication, completion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and material support (transport reimbursement). Being treated with compassion and receiving social support enabled participants to build positive relationships with the research team, which improved mental health and well-being. Open and non-judgmental communication made participants feel accepted. Participants described how repeated completion of the PROMs was a prompt for reflection, through which they began to help themselves and self-care. Participant reimbursements relieved financial hardship and enabled them to fulfil their social responsibilities, enhancing self-worth. These findings emphasise the importance of compassion, support and effective communication in the clinical encounter, particularly in stigmatised and isolated populations, and the potential of the integration of simple PROMs to improve patient outcomes. Participation in research has unexpected positive benefits for participants, which should be taken into account when designing research in similar populations. Researchers should be aware of the effects of financial reimbursement and contact with researchers in isolated and impoverished communities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]