Explore the vast range of titles available.

Interim analyses in clinical trials can take on a multitude of forms. They are often used to guide Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommendations to study teams regarding recruitment targets for large, later-phase clinical trials. As collaborative biostatisticians working and teaching in multiple fields of research and across a broad array of trial phases, we note the large heterogeneity and confusion surrounding interim analyses in clinical trials. Thus, in this paper, we aim to provide a general overview and guidance on interim analyses for a nonstatistical audience. We explain each of the following types of interim analyses: efficacy, futility, safety, and sample size re-estimation, and we provide the reader with reasoning, examples, and implications for each. We emphasize that while the types of interim analyses employed may differ depending on the nature of the study, we would always recommend prespecification of the interim analytic plan to the extent possible with risk mitigation and trial integrity remaining a priority. Finally, we posit that interim analyses should be used as tools to help the DSMB make informed decisions in the context of the overarching study. They should generally not be deemed binding, and they should not be reviewed in isolation.

Background In theory, efficient design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involves randomization algorithms that control baseline variable imbalance efficiently, and corresponding analysis involves pre-specified adjustment for baseline covariates. This review sought to explore techniques for handling potentially influential baseline variables in both the design and analysis phase of RCTs. Methods We searched PubMed for articles indexed “randomized controlled trial”, published in the NEJM , JAMA , BMJ , or Lancet for two time periods: 2009 and 2014 (before and after updated CONSORT guidelines). Upon screening (343), 298 articles underwent full review and data abstraction. Results Typical articles reported on superiority (86%), multicenter (92%), two-armed (79%) trials; 81% of trials involved covariates in the allocation and 84% presented adjusted analysis results. The majority reported a stratified block method (69%) of allocation, and of the trials reporting adjusted analyses, 91% were pre-specified. Trials published in 2014 were more likely to report adjusted analyses (87% vs. 79%, p  = 0.0100) and more likely to pre-specify adjustment in analyses (95% vs. 85%, p  = 0.0045). Studies initiated in later years (2010 or later) were less likely to use an adaptive method of randomization ( p  = 0.0066; 7% of those beginning in 2010 or later vs. 31% of those starting before 2000) but more likely to report a pre-specified adjusted analysis ( p  = 0.0029; 97% for those initiated in 2010 or later vs. 69% of those started before 2000). Conclusion While optimal reporting procedures and pre-specification of adjusted analyses for RCTs tend to be progressively more prevalent over time, we see the opposite effect on reported use of covariate-adaptive randomization methods.

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 ( n  = 32 intervention, n  = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (−4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: −10.8, 1.3, p  = 0.123] and a −4.9 mmHg (95% CI: −8.6, −1.3, p  = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312.

Background The association between unplanned pregnancy and perinatal depression is understudied in racially and ethnically diverse and low-income populations. The present study was compromised of a secondary analysis of data from a low-income and 70% racially and ethnically minoritized sample to examine associations between unplanned pregnancy and perinatal depressive symptoms and to explore potential moderation by social factors. Methods Pregnant individuals ( n  = 808) were enrolled in a larger study evaluating the effectiveness of a preventative intervention for postpartum depression, and self-reported depressive symptoms were collected prenatally and at 12 weeks postpartum using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. Multiple linear regression examined the relationship between unplanned pregnancy and maternal depressive symptoms, and the potential interactions between unplanned pregnancy and (1) race/ethnicity (2), education level (3), first-time parent status, and (4) a prenatal mental healthcare utilization. Analyses were conducted both within the sample as a whole and within racial/ethnic subgroups. Results While bivariate regression revealed a significant association between unplanned pregnancy and prenatal depressive symptoms (β = 0.88, 95% CI [0.27, 1.49], p  = 0.005), unplanned pregnancy was not significantly associated with prenatal or postpartum depression in adjusted models in the full sample. Analyses suggested different trends in racial/ethnic subgroups. Specifically, endorsing prenatal mental healthcare utilization and unplanned pregnancy was associated with higher prenatal depressive symptoms in the Latine subgroup compared to those whose pregnancies were planned (β = 4.59, 95% CI [0.60, 8.59], p  = 0.025). Additionally, unplanned pregnancy was associated with higher depressive symptoms at 12 weeks postpartum compared to those with planned pregnancy also in the Latine sample (β = 1.06; 95% CI [0.10, 2.03], p  = 0.031). Unplanned pregnancy was not found to be associated with prenatal depressive symptoms in the adjusted models of any other racial/ethnic subgroups. Conclusions These secondary analyses from a larger study suggest potentially important differences in the association between unplanned pregnancy and perinatal depressive symptoms by racial/ethnic subgroups. Future research should acknowledge the myriad stressors and protective factors experienced by low-income and racially and ethnically diverse perinatal populations when evaluating differences in outcomes among racial/ethnic subgroups.

Background Perinatal depression is a pervasive public health concern that disproportionately affects low-income women and can have negative impacts on parenting and child developmental outcomes. Few interventions focus on preventing perinatal depression. Previous studies suggest that Mothers and Babies is efficacious in preventing the worsening of depressive symptoms and the onset of postpartum depression. This manuscript presents the protocol of the EPIC study (Effects of a Prenatal Depression Preventive Intervention on parenting and young children’s Self-Regulation and Functioning) to test the effects of Mothers and Babies on parenting and child developmental outcomes through 54 months postpartum. EPIC is an observational study that builds on a completed cluster-randomized trial (CRT). Innovations of this study are direct observations of a subsample of mother-child dyads and the inclusion of fathers/caregivers’ variables as moderators of maternal mental health. Methods For this study, we plan to enroll 738 women with children under 30 months old, ≥18 years old, and who speak English or Spanish. Additionally, 429 fathers, partners, or other adult caregivers will be recruited through women participating in the study. Women will be recruited through the parent study (intervention and control participants) or through one of 10 home visiting programs in Illinois (control participants). Data collection will take place through maternal self-report at five time points (when the child is 30, 36, 42, 48, and 54 months), paternal self-report at three time points (when the child is 30, 42, and 54 months), and through mother-child observations at three time points (when the child is 36, 42, and 48 months). Outcome domains include maternal mental health, cognitive-behavioral and parenting skills, and child self-regulation and functioning. Moderators include the contributions of fathers/caregivers, race-ethnicity, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Power and sample size were calculated assuming a two-sided 5% type I error rate and assumed analyses on the individual level. Discussion This study has several key strengths and innovations, as well as great potential significance to influence the long-term trajectories of parenting and child development via prenatal intervention. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04296734 ) on March 5, 2020.

Research studies involving human subjects require collection of and reporting on demographic data related to race and ethnicity. However, existing practices lack standardized guidelines, leading to misrepresentation and biased inferences and conclusions for underrepresented populations in research studies. For instance, sometimes there is a misconception that self-reported racial or ethnic identity may be treated as a biological variable with underlying genetic implications, overlooking its role as a social construct reflecting lived experiences of specific populations. In this manuscript, we use the We All Count data equity framework, which organizes data projects across seven stages: Funding, Motivation, Project Design, Data Collection, Analysis, Reporting, and Communication. Focusing on data collection and analysis, we use examples – both real and hypothetical – to review common practice and provide critiques and alternative recommendations. Through these examples and recommendations, we hope to provide the reader with some ideas and a starting point as they consider embedding a lens of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusivity from research conception to dissemination of findings.

Background Mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to improve psychological outcomes including stress, anxiety, and depression in general population studies. However, effectiveness has not been sufficiently examined in racially and ethnically diverse community-based settings. We will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of a mindfulness-based intervention on depressive symptoms among predominantly Black women at a Federally Qualified Health Center in a metropolitan city. Methods In this 2-armed, stratified, individually randomized group-treated controlled trial, 274 English-speaking participants with depressive symptoms ages 18–65 years old will be randomly assigned to (1) eight weekly, 90-min group sessions of a mindfulness-based intervention (M-Body), or (2) enhanced usual care. Exclusion criteria include suicidal ideation in 30 days prior to enrollment and regular (>4x/week) meditation practice. Study metrics will be assessed at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months after baseline, through clinical interviews, self-report surveys, and stress biomarker data including blood pressure, heart rate, and stress related biomarkers. The primary study outcome is depressive symptom score after 6 months. Discussion If M-Body is found to be an effective intervention for adults with depressive symptoms, this accessible, scalable treatment will widely increase access to mental health treatment in underserved, racial/ethnic minority communities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03620721. Registered on 8 August 2018.

Background In cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs), covariate-constrained randomization (CCR) methods efficiently control imbalance in multiple baseline cluster-level variables, but the choice of imbalance metric to define the subset of “adequately balanced” possible allocation schemes for C-RCTs involving more than two arms and continuous variables is unclear. In an ongoing three-armed C-RCT, we chose the min(three Kruskal–Wallis [KW] test P values) > 0.30 as our metric. We use simulation studies to explore the performance of this and other metrics of baseline variable imbalance in CCR. Methods We simulated three continuous variables across three arms under varying allocation ratios and assumptions. We compared the performance of min(analysis of variance [ANOVA] P value) > 0.30, min(KW P value) > 0.30, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) P value > 0.30, min(nine possible t test P values) > 0.30, and min(Wilcoxon rank-sum [WRS] P values) > 0.30. Results Pairwise comparison metrics ( t test and WRS) tended to be the most conservative, providing the smallest subset of allocation schemes (10%–13%) meeting criteria for acceptable balance. Sensitivity of the min( t test P values) > 0.30 for detecting non-trivial imbalance was 100% for both hypothetical and resampled simulation scenarios. The KW criterion maintained higher sensitivity than both the MANOVA and ANOVA criteria (89% to over 99%) but was not as sensitive as pairwise criteria. Conclusions Our criterion, the KW P value > 0.30, to signify “acceptable” balance was not the most conservative, but it appropriately identified imbalance in the majority of simulations. Since all are related, CCR algorithms involving any of these imbalance metrics for continuous baseline variables will ensure robust simultaneous control over multiple continuous baseline variables, but we recommend care in determining the threshold of “acceptable” levels of (im)balance. Trial registration This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (initial post: December 1, 2016; identifier: NCT02979444 ).

Background Young men who have sex with men (YMSM) are disproportionately impacted by the HIV epidemic in the USA, and a large number of new infections among YMSM occur in the context of main or primary partnerships. At the same time, healthy romantic relationships promote health and wellbeing by improving social support and encouraging healthy behaviors. Thus, we created 2GETHER: a relationship education and HIV prevention program for young male couples. 2GETHER is delivered face-to-face in a university setting and is composed of two group sessions and two individualized skills coaching sessions. We observed strong support of the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of 2GETHER in a pilot trial. Methods We are conducting an attention-matched randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of 2GETHER relative to a control condition based on a well-validated positive affect enhancement program. Enrollment occurred between August 2017 and March 2021 in Chicago and surrounding areas, and we enrolled and randomized 128 dyads ( N  = 256 individuals). Follow-up is ongoing and we will examine primary and secondary behavioral outcomes at 12 months post-intervention, with interim follow-up at 3, 6, and 9 months post-intervention. The primary biomedical outcome is sexually transmitted infection incidence at a 12-month follow-up. Discussion 2GETHER is innovative in that it places an equal emphasis on relationship skill building and HIV prevention. Thus, the program has the potential to impact numerous health-related outcomes. Despite challenges related to the recruitment of couples and the COVID-19 pandemic, we were able to enroll a robust sample of young male couples with sufficient power to detect effects on study outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03186534 .

IntroductionLow back pain is a common problem and a substantial source of morbidity and disability worldwide. Patients frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for low back pain, but many experience persistent symptoms at 3 months despite frequent receipt of opioids. Although physical therapy interventions have been demonstrated to improve patient functioning in the outpatient setting, no randomised trial has yet to evaluate physical therapy in the ED setting.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre cluster-randomised trial of an embedded ED physical therapy intervention for acute low back pain. We used a covariate-constrained approach to randomise individual physicians (clusters) at an urban academic ED in Chicago, Illinois, USA, to receive, or not receive, an embedded physical therapist on their primary treatment team to evaluate all patients with low back pain. We will then enrol individual ED patients with acute low back pain and allocate them to the embedded physical therapy or usual care study arms, depending on the randomisation assignment of their treating physician. We will follow patients to a primary endpoint of 3 months and compare a primary outcome of change in PROMIS-Pain Interference score and secondary outcomes of change in modified Oswestry Disability Index score and patient-reported opioid use. Our primary approach will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis, whereby all participants who complete at least one follow-up data time point will be included in analyses, regardless of their or their physicians’ adherence to their assigned study arm.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS027426) and was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. All physician and patient participants will give written informed consent to study participation. Trial results will be submitted for presentation at scientific meetings and for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04921449)