Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Methods Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness. Results Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power. Conclusions While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.

BackgroundSubstantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope.ObjectivesTo review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.Data sources and study selectionHTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed.Data extractionInformation was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers.Main outcome measuresTarget sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data).ResultsThis review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43–2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79–97%).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a neurocognitive state between normal cognitive aging and dementia, with evidence of neuropsychological changes but insufficient functional decline to warrant a diagnosis of dementia. Individuals with MCI are at increased risk for progression to dementia; and an appreciable proportion display neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), also a known risk factor for dementia. Cerebrovascular disease (CVD) is thought to be an underdiagnosed contributor to MCI/dementia. The Ginkgo biloba extract, EGb 761®, is increasingly being used for the symptomatic treatment of cognitive disorders with/without CVD, due to its known neuroprotective effects and cerebrovascular benefits. Aims To present consensus opinion from the ASian Clinical Expert group on Neurocognitive Disorders (ASCEND) regarding the role of EGb 761® in MCI. Materials & Methods The ASCEND Group reconvened in September 2019 to present and critically assess the current evidence on the general management of MCI, including the efficacy and safety of EGb 761® as a treatment option. Results EGb 761® has demonstrated symptomatic improvement in at least four randomized trials, in terms of cognitive performance, memory, recall and recognition, attention and concentration, anxiety, and NPS. There is also evidence that EGb 761® may help delay progression from MCI to dementia in some individuals. Discussion EGb 761® is currently recommended in multiple guidelines for the symptomatic treatment of MCI. Due to its beneficial effects on cerebrovascular blood flow, it is reasonable to expect that EGb 761® may benefit MCI patients with underlying CVD. Conclusion As an expert group, we suggest it is clinically appropriate to incorporate EGb 761® as part of the multidomain intervention for MCI. EGb 761® has demonstrated improvement in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) symptoms in at least four randomized trails, and is currently recommended for MCI in multiple clinical guidelines. The ASian clinical expert group on Neurocognitive Disorders (ASCEND) suggests that it is clinically appropriate to incorporate EGb 761® as part of the multidomain intervention for MCI, including cases with underlying CVD.

Background Patient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional’s skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials. Methods A survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate. Results Forty-four Units participated ( N  = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis ( n  = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided. Conclusions Widespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Background New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)” randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed. Main text ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated. Conclusion Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4–6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6–8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F–FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Large, longitudinal, multi-center MR neuroimaging studies require comprehensive quality assurance (QA) protocols for assessing the general quality of the compiled data, indicating potential malfunctions in the scanning equipment, and evaluating inter-site differences that need to be accounted for in subsequent analyses. We describe the implementation of a QA protocol for functional magnet resonance imaging (fMRI) data based on the regular measurement of an MRI phantom and an extensive variety of currently published QA statistics. The protocol is implemented in the MACS (Marburg-Münster Affective Disorders Cohort Study, http://for2107.de/), a two-center research consortium studying the neurobiological foundations of affective disorders. Between February 2015 and October 2016, 1214 phantom measurements have been acquired using a standard fMRI protocol. Using 444 healthy control subjects which have been measured between 2014 and 2016 in the cohort, we investigate the extent of between-site differences in contrast to the dependence on subject-specific covariates (age and sex) for structural MRI, fMRI, and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data. We show that most of the presented QA statistics differ severely not only between the two scanners used for the cohort but also between experimental settings (e.g. hardware and software changes), demonstrate that some of these statistics depend on external variables (e.g. time of day, temperature), highlight their strong dependence on proper handling of the MRI phantom, and show how the use of a phantom holder may balance this dependence. Site effects, however, do not only exist for the phantom data, but also for human MRI data. Using T1-weighted structural images, we show that total intracranial (TIV), grey matter (GMV), and white matter (WMV) volumes significantly differ between the MR scanners, showing large effect sizes. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analyses show that these structural differences observed between scanners are most pronounced in the bilateral basal ganglia, thalamus, and posterior regions. Using DTI data, we also show that fractional anisotropy (FA) differs between sites in almost all regions assessed. When pooling data from multiple centers, our data show that it is a necessity to account not only for inter-site differences but also for hardware and software changes of the scanning equipment. Also, the strong dependence of the QA statistics on the reliable placement of the MRI phantom shows that the use of a phantom holder is recommended to reduce the variance of the QA statistics and thus to increase the probability of detecting potential scanner malfunctions. •Quality assurance (QA) protocol for large, longitudinal, multi-center MR neuroimaging studies.•Dependence of QA statistics on MR-scanner type, hardware and software changes and external variables (e.g., time of day, temperature).•Consequences of phantom data variations for human MRI data.•Dependence of MR phantom placement on QA statistics.

Background Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers. Methods We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. Results The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential. Conclusions The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Background In locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC) patients, variance of tumor response to induction chemotherapy (ICT) was observed. We developed and validated a novel imaging biomarker to predict which patients will benefit most from additional ICT compared with chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) alone. Methods All patients, including retrospective training ( n  = 254) and prospective randomized controlled validation cohorts (a substudy of NCT01245959, n  = 248), received ICT+CCRT or CCRT alone. Primary endpoint was failure-free survival (FFS). From the multi-parameter magnetic resonance images of the primary tumor at baseline, 819 quantitative 2D imaging features were extracted. Selected key features (according to their interaction effect between the two treatments) were combined into an Induction Chemotherapy Outcome Score (ICTOS) with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using modified covariate method. Kaplan-Meier curves and significance test for treatment interaction were used to evaluate ICTOS, in both cohorts. Results Three imaging features were selected and combined into ICTOS to predict treatment outcome for additional ICT. In the matched training cohort, patients with a high ICTOS had higher 3-year and 5-year FFS in ICT+CCRT than CCRT subgroup (69.3% vs. 45.6% for 3-year FFS, and 64.0% vs. 36.5% for 5-year FFS; HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.25–0.74, p  = 0.002), whereas patients with a low ICTOS had no significant difference in FFS between the subgroups ( p  = 0.063), with a significant treatment interaction ( p interaction  <  0.001). This trend was also found in the validation cohort with high ( n  = 73, ICT+CCRT 89.7% and 89.7% vs. CCRT 61.8% and 52.8% at 3-year and 5-year; HR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06–0.51, p  <  0.001) and low ICTOS ( n  = 175, p  = 0.31), with a significant treatment interaction ( p interaction  = 0.019). Compared with 12.5% and 16.6% absolute benefit in the validation cohort (3-year FFS from 69.9 to 82.4% and 5-year FFS from 63.4 to 80.0% from additional ICT), high ICTOS group in this cohort had 27.9% and 36.9% absolute benefit. Furthermore, no significant survival improvement was found from additional ICT in both groups after stratifying low ICTOS patients into low-risk and high-risks groups, by clinical risk factors. Conclusion An imaging biomarker, ICTOS, as proposed, identified patients who were more likely to gain additional survival benefit from ICT+CCRT (high ICTOS), which could influence clinical decisions, such as the indication for ICT treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01245959 . Registered 23 November 2010.

Background Classical monitoring approaches rely on extensive on-site visits and source data verification. These activities are associated with high cost and a limited contribution to data quality. Central statistical monitoring is of particular interest to address these shortcomings. Purpose This article outlines the principles of central statistical monitoring and the challenges of implementing it in actual trials. Methods A statistical approach to central monitoring is based on a large number of statistical tests performed on all variables collected in the database, in order to identify centers that differ from the others. The tests generate a high-dimensional matrix of p-values, which can be analyzed by statistical methods and bioinformatic tools to identify extreme centers. Results Results from actual trials are provided to illustrate typical findings that can be expected from a central statistical monitoring approach, which detects abnormal patterns that were not (or could not have been) detected by on-site monitoring. Limitations Central statistical monitoring can only address problems present in the data. Important aspects of trial conduct such as a lack of informed consent documentation, for instance, require other approaches. The results provided here are empirical examples from a limited number of studies. Conclusion Central statistical monitoring can both optimize on-site monitoring and improve data quality and as such provides a cost-effective way of meeting regulatory requirements for clinical trials.