Search

BackgroundIn an adaptive clinical trial (ACT), key trial characteristics may be altered during the course of the trial according to predefined rules in response to information that accumulates within the trial itself. In addition to having distinguishing scientific features, adaptive trials also may involve ethical considerations that differ from more traditional randomized trials. Better understanding of clinical trial experts' views about the ethical aspects of adaptive designs could assist those planning ACTs. Our aim was to elucidate the opinions of clinical trial experts regarding their beliefs about ethical aspects of ACTs.MethodsWe used a convergent, mixed-methods design employing a 22-item ACTs beliefs survey with visual analog scales and open-ended questions and mini-focus groups. We developed a coding scheme to conduct thematic searches of textual data, depicted responses to visual analog scales on box-plot diagrams, and integrated findings thematically. Fifty-three clinical trial experts from four constituent groups participated: academic biostatisticians (n = 5); consultant biostatisticians (n = 6); academic clinicians (n = 22); and other stakeholders including patient advocacy, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration representatives (n = 20).ResultsThe respondents recognized potential ethical benefits of ACTs, including a higher probability of receiving an effective intervention for participants, optimizing resource utilization, and accelerating treatment discovery. Ethical challenges voiced include developing procedures so trial participants can make informed decisions about taking part in ACTs and plausible, though unlikely risks of research personnel altering enrollment patterns.ConclusionsClinical trial experts recognize ethical advantages but also pose potential ethical challenges of ACTs. The four constituencies differ in their weighing of ACT ethical considerations based on their professional vantage points. These data suggest further discussion about the ethics of ACTs is needed to facilitate ACT planning, design and conduct, and ultimately better allow planners to weigh ethical implications of competing trial designs.

The accuracy of Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in a large number of participants across multiple centers are assessed. CTC, also known as virtual colonoscopy is reasonably accurate in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the studies performed.

Abstract Background African Americans with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have higher prevalence of diabetes, poorer metabolic control, and greater risk for complications and death compared to American Whites. Poor outcomes in African Americans with T2DM can be attributed to patient, provider, and health systems level factors. Provider and health system factors account for Methods/Design We describe an ongoing four-year randomized clinical trial, using a 2 × 2 factorial design, which will test the efficacy of separate and combined telephone-delivered, diabetes knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training interventions in high risk African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM (HbA1c ≥ 9%). Two-hundred thirty-two (232) male and female African-American participants, 18 years of age or older and with an HbA1c ≥ 9%, will be randomized into one of four groups for 12-weeks of phone interventions: (1) an education group, (2) a motivation/skills group, (3) a combined group or (4) a usual care/general health education group. Participants will be followed for 12-months to ascertain the effect of the interventions on glycemic control. Our primary hypothesis is that among African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM, patients randomized to the combined diabetes knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training intervention will have significantly greater reduction in HbA1c at 12 months of follow-up compared to the usual care/general health education group. Discussion Results from this study will provide important insight into how best to deliver diabetes education and skills training in ethnic minorities and whether combined knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training is superior to the usual method of delivering diabetes education for African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM. Trial registration National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier# NCT00929838).

Clustered binary outcomes are frequently encountered in clinical research (e.g. longitudinal studies). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) for clustered endpoints have challenges for some scenarios (e.g. data with multi-way interactions and nonlinear predictors unknown a priori). We develop an alternative, data-driven method called Binary Mixed Model (BiMM) tree, which combines decision tree and GLMM within a unified framework. Simulation studies show that BiMM tree achieves slightly higher or similar accuracy compared to standard methods. The method is applied to a real dataset from the Acute Liver Failure Study Group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traditionally in acute stroke clinical trials, the primary clinical outcome employed is a dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS). New statistical methods, such as responder analysis, are being used in stroke studies to address the concern that baseline prognostic variables, such as stroke severity, impact the likelihood of a successful outcome. Responder analysis allows the definition of success to vary according to baseline prognostic variables, producing a more clinically relevant insight into the actual effect of investigational treatments. It is unclear whether or not statistical analyses should adjust for prognostic variables when responder analysis is used, as the outcome already takes these prognostic variables into account. This research aims to investigate the effect of covariate adjustment in the responder analysis framework in order to determine the appropriate analytic method.Methods: Using a current stroke clinical trial and its pilot studies to guide simulation parameters, 1,000 clinical trials were simulated at varying sample sizes under several treatment effects to assess power and type I error. Covariate-adjusted and unadjusted logistic regressions were used to estimate the treatment effect under each scenario. In the case of covariate-adjusted logistic regression, the trichotomized National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used in adjustment.Results: Under various treatment effect settings, the operating characteristics of the unadjusted and adjusted analyses do not substantially differ. Power and type I error are preserved for both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses.Conclusions: Our results suggest that, under the given treatment effect scenarios, the decision whether or not to adjust for baseline severity when using a responder analysis outcome should be guided by the needs of the study, as type I error rates and power do not appear to vary largely between the methods. These findings are applicable to stroke trials which use the mRS for the primary outcome, but also provide a broader insight into the analysis of binary outcomes that are defined based on baseline prognostic variables.Trial Registration: This research is part of the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial, Identification Number NCT01369069. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: African Americans with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have higher prevalence of diabetes, poorer metabolic control, and greater risk for complications and death compared to American Whites. Poor outcomes in African Americans with T2DM can be attributed to patient, provider, and health systems level factors. Provider and health system factors account for <10% of variance in major diabetes outcomes including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), lipid control, and resource use. Key differences appear to be at the patient level. Of the patient level factors, consistent differences between African Americans and American Whites with T2DM have been found in diabetes knowledge, self-management skills, empowerment, and perceived control. A variety of interventions to improve diabetes self-management have been tested including: 1) knowledge interventions; 2) lifestyle interventions; 3) skills training interventions; and 4) patient activation and empowerment interventions. Most of these interventions have been tested individually, but rarely have they been tested in combination, especially among African Americans who have the greatest burden of diabetes related complications. This study provides a unique opportunity to address this gap in the literature.Methods/design: We describe an ongoing four-year randomized clinical trial, using a 2 x 2 factorial design, which will test the efficacy of separate and combined telephone-delivered, diabetes knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training interventions in high risk African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM (HbA1c >or= 9%). Two-hundred thirty-two (232) male and female African-American participants, 18 years of age or older and with an HbA1c >or= 9%, will be randomized into one of four groups for 12-weeks of phone interventions: (1) an education group, (2) a motivation/skills group, (3) a combined group or (4) a usual care/general health education group. Participants will be followed for 12-months to ascertain the effect of the interventions on glycemic control. Our primary hypothesis is that among African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM, patients randomized to the combined diabetes knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training intervention will have significantly greater reduction in HbA1c at 12 months of follow-up compared to the usual care/general health education group.Discussion: Results from this study will provide important insight into how best to deliver diabetes education and skills training in ethnic minorities and whether combined knowledge/information and motivation/behavioral skills training is superior to the usual method of delivering diabetes education for African Americans with poorly controlled T2DM.Trial Registration: National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier# NCT00929838). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a highly prevalent, disabling illness. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are considered first-line medication treatment, with sertraline, paroxetine, and fluoxetine being the most studied. More limited but favorable data suggest that citalopram, an SSRI, may also have a role in the treatment of PTSD. Its S-enantiomer escitalopram, which may have faster onset and greater magnitude of effect than citalopram in other conditions, has not yet been investigated in PTSD., Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of PTSD., Method: A 12-week, prospective, open-label trial of escitalopram was conducted from January 2003 through August 2004 in military veterans with PTSD. Escitalopram was initiated at 10 mg daily for 4 weeks, then increased to 20 mg daily for the remainder of the study. Concomitant psychiatric medications were discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to enrollment. The primary outcome variable was the change from baseline to endpoint in global Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale-Symptom version (CAPS-SX) score. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and the Davidson Trauma Scale (DTS). Posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid diagnoses were established using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition., Results: Twenty-four of 25 patients were evaluated for efficacy. The mean global CAPS-SX score decreased from 79.4 (SD = 15.7) at baseline to 61.2 (SD = 24.7) at the end of the study (p = .0002). The CAPS-C avoidance/numbing and CAPS-D hyper-arousal subscale scores decreased significantly from baseline to endpoint (CAPS-C, p = .0171; CAPS-D, p = .0001), with trend-level reductions observed in CAPS-B reexperiencing subscale scores (p = .0593). Forty-five percent of patients (9/20) were much or very much improved at the end of the study (CGI-I of 1 or 2). The HAM-D and DTS also significantly improved (p = .0063 and p = .0004, respectively). Mild to moderate gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common side effects. Only 4 patients discontinued early because of adverse effects., Conclusions: This preliminary open-label study suggests that escitalopram is both efficacious and well tolerated in PTSD patients. However, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results and to further define its potential role in the treatment of PTSD.