1 / 58

PubH 7420 Clinical Trials

PubH 7420 Clinical Trials. Instructor: Jim Neaton 612-626-9040 jim@ccbr.umn.edu 2221 University Ave SE, Room 200 Text: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials Friedman, Furberg , and DeMets Evaluation: Homework: 3 exercises (15%) Group debates (5%) Protocol project (20%)

abrial
Download Presentation

PubH 7420 Clinical Trials

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PubH 7420Clinical Trials Instructor: Jim Neaton 612-626-9040 jim@ccbr.umn.edu 2221 University Ave SE, Room 200 Text: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials Friedman, Furberg, and DeMets Evaluation: Homework: 3 exercises (15%) Group debates (5%) Protocol project (20%) Mid Term (30%) Final (30%) Web Site: http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~ph7420

  2. Books on Reserve • Pocock: Clinical Trials. A Practical Approach. • Meinert: Clinical Trials. Design, Conduct and and Analysis Reading Room – 4th floor Mayo

  3. TAs for PubH 7420 ChiHyun Lee – leex5865@umn.edu Donald Musgrove – musgr007@umn.edu Debashree Ray – rayxx267@umn.edu

  4. Group Work: Protocol and Debate Topics • Eight multidisciplinary groups, 7-8 members. • Four protocol topics, 2 groups assigned to each. • Eight debate topics; 2 groups will debate (each group twice) • 20 minute debate, 10 minutes per group (max of 7 slides per group) • Each side of the debate should be presented by 1 person. Pro side goes first. All group members are expected to participate (see calendar for schedule).

  5. Protocol Project • Protocol • 10 -12 pages. • On the last page of the protocol indicate the members of the team and the sections they contributed to. • Turn in by the last day of class. • Presentation • 20 minutes during the last 2 weeks of class, followed by questions and discussion.

  6. Outline of Protocol • Background and rationale for study • Study design • Objectives (primary, secondary, subgroup hypotheses) • Primary and secondary endpoints (efficacy and safety) • Inclusion and exclusion criteria • Treatments • Sample size • Data collection plan and follow-up schedule • Data analysis plan, including plan for interim monitoring and guidelines for early termination

  7. Advice for Groups • Elect a chairperson and rapporteur. • Divide up the work among all group members. • Give each group member a list of names and email addresses. • Plan to meet 6-7 times during the semester. • Plan to have 1 member present the debate slides and 3 members present the protocol.

  8. General Methods of Investigation 1. Chance observations 2. Case histories • individual cases • case series 3. Uncontrolled trials of an intervention 4. Cross-sectional (naturalistic) studies 5. Case-control studies 6. Prospective follow-up studies 7. Randomized clinical trial No planned concurrent comparison group

  9. Did Investigator Assign Exposures? Yes No Observational study Experimental study Random allocation? Comparison group? Yes No Yes No Analyticalstudy Descriptivestudy Non-randomised controlledtrial Randomised controlledtrial Direction? Exposure and outcome atthe same time Exposure Outcome Exposure Outcome Case-controlstudy Cross-sectionalstudy Cohortstudy Grimes and Schulz, Lancet, 359:57-61, 2002.

  10. Hierarchy of Evidence Coherence of evidence from multiple sources Systematic review of well-designed, large randomized trials Strong evidence from one large randomized trial Systematic review of small trials (e.g., surrogate outcome studies) Systematic review of from well-designed cohort studies Strong evidence from one cohort study Unsystematic observations (expert opinions) Adapted from Devereaux PJ et al, Evidence-Based Cardiology, 2nd Edition, BMJ Books, 2003.

  11. Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence+ + www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 ++ e.g., all died before treatment became available and now some survive

  12. Rating Schemes for Clinical Guidelines • Quality of Evidence • I: One or more trials with clinical outcomes • II: One or more well-designed, non-randomized trials or cohort studies with clinical outcomes • III: Expert opinion • Strength of Recommendation+ • A: Strong • B: Moderate • C: Optional + from DHHS guidelines for the treatment of HIV http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/Guidelines

  13. Rating Schemes Are Used in Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Disease • Guideline panels regularly, systematically develop statements to assist practitioners and to avoid inappropriate heath care variation • Guidelines are used to develop performance measures and benchmarks for quality of care

  14. A Review of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines • 16 guidelines with an increasing number of recommendations over time • 314/2711 were Level A (median = 11%) • 1246/2711 were Level C or D (median = 48%) A = multiple randomized trials or meta-analysis C = case studies, standard of care or expert opinion Tricoci P et. al. JAMA 2009; 301: 831-841

  15. Recent Reports of Interest • Updated guidelines for management of high blood pressure • JNC 8: JAMA, published online December 18, 2013 with 2 editorials • ASH: J Clin Hyper, published online December 17, 2014. • JNC 8 Minority View, published online January 14, 2014 in Ann Intern Med • Review of WHO expert guidelines • “WHO recommendations are often strong based on low confidence in effect estimates”.

  16. Types of Clinical Research in Journals and Press • Fletcher and Fletcher (N Engl J Med 1979) • Review of articles published from 1946-1976 • In 1976, 44% cross-sectional, 34% cohort studies, 5% randomized trials • “Predominant designs in 1976 were less accurate ways of conducting clinical research”. • Lai and Lane (PLoS One 2009) • Of 734 front-page stories 43% were presentations/abstracts • Of the journal articles reported, 3% were overviews of trials and 21% were randomized trials, 42% cohort studies and 31% expert opinions

  17. Chance ObservationsExamples • Bleeding among children chewing gum containing aspirin to relieve the pain from tonsillectomies (Dr. Lawrence Craven) (see Dalen J, Arch Int Med 1991; 151:1066-1069) • Discovery of penicillin (Fleming) and digitalis (purple foxglove) (Withering)

  18. Case Histories (or Case Report) • Most ancient and widely used method of clinical investigation • Most useful for disease with a specific etiologic agent • Standard for comparison is usually implicit The New England Journal of Medicine usually has a case described in each issue http://www.nejm.org/browse?category=clinicalcases

  19. Case Series • Def. – aggregation of individual cases in one report; the series may include all persons with an outcome or all persons with an exposure and outcome, e.g., an epidemic or spontaneously reported adverse events Weaknesses • No concurrent control • Usually inadequate information about persons not developing the disease • Cases may not be representative; persons with disease are survivors of unknown population

  20. Example: Case Series Jaffe et al. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome in the United States: The first 1,000 cases. J Inf Dis 148:339-45, 1983. Purpose: To describe characteristics of the cases.

  21. Case Definition Eligibility Criteria: 1. Biopsy proven Kaposi sarcoma (KS) or 2. Biopsy, histology, or culture proven infection moderately predictive of cellular immune deficiency a. Protozoal and helminthic (parasitic worms) infections, e.g., Pneumocystiscarinii pneumonia (now Pneumocystisjiroveci and recognized to be a fungal disease) b. Fungal infections, e.g., esophageal candidiasis c. Bacterial infections, e.g., atypical mycobacterial disease d. Viral infections, e.g., cytomegalovirus disease Exclusion Criteria: 1. Previous immunosuppressive therapy 2. Illness associated with immunosuppression 3. Persons with KS over 60 years of age 4. Persons under 10 years of age

  22. Surveillance 1. Review of selected cancer tumor registries 2. Contact with selected physicians in 18 communities 3. Review of request for pentamidine isethionate by CDC Parasitic Diseases Drug Service 4. Reports from individual physicians and state health departments

  23. Results • 727 cases were homosexual or bisexual males; of remaining cases 155 were IV drug users • 75% of homosexual men were from New York or California • 48% of cases were 30 - 39 years of age • There was an excess of KS among homosexual / bisexual men • Distribution of cases by risk group changed over time

  24. Case Series Summary • A descriptive study, i.e., not designed to address a specific hypothesis or estimate absolute risk of an outcome. • Key feature: Clear, reproducible case definition with a focus on person, place and time • Addresses 5 “W” questions: who, what, why, when, and where • Often the 1st approach taken and the results are used to generate specific hypotheses

  25. Other Examples of Case Series: Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1v) • Pneumonia and respiratory failure from swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) in Mexico (N Engl J Med 2009;361:680-689) • Critically ill patients with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) in Mexico (JAMA 2009; 302:1880-1887) • Hospitalized patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, April-June 2009 (N Engl J Med 2009;361:1935-1944) • Emergence of a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in China (N Engl J Med 2009;360:2605-2615)

  26. Case Series Helped Define Prospective Cohort Studies with Specific Hypotheses • INSIGHT H1N1v Outpatient Study • Characterize patients with influenza-like illness, influenza A and H1N1v • Identify risk factors for hospitalization within 14 days of diagnosis • INSIGHT H1N1v Hospitalization Study • Characterize patients hospitalized with influenza A and H1N1v • Identify risk factors for death within 60 days of admission • For both studies: • Molecularly characterize the virus • Establish a repository of serum to study biomarkers. Dwyer D et al. Vaccine 2011;295:B56-B62.

  27. Example: Uncontrolled Trial of an Intervention Moertel et al. A clinical trial of amygdalin (laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. NEJM 306:201-6, 1982. Purpose: To determine if laetrile was an effective and safe treatment for cancer. Study preceded by retrospective analysis of laetrile users (estimated 70,000 people, 93 cases submitted, 67 with medical records, 6 “responders”). NEJM 299:549-552, 1978.

  28. “New Laetrile Study Leaves Cancer Institute in the Pits” Science, October 1978

  29. Did Investigator Assign Exposures? Yes No Observational study Experimental study Random allocation? Comparison group? Yes No Yes No Analyticalstudy Descriptivestudy Non-randomised controlledtrial Randomised controlledtrial Direction? Exposure and outcome at the same time Exposure Outcome Exposure Outcome Case-controlstudy Cross-sectionalstudy Cohortstudy Grimes and Schulz, Lancet, 359:57-61, 2002.

  30. Eligibility Criteria 1. Histologically proven cancer 2. No surgery, radiation or chemotherapy in past month 3. Good general condition (able to eat and get about alone) 4. No known cure 5. Measurable tumors Treatment: Naturally derived laetrile • 21-day intravenous schedule followed by oral dose • High doses of vitamins • Restricted diet

  31. Response Variables (Endpoints): • Tumor size • Regression • Stable • Progression • Weight • Performance status • Side effects • Mortality

  32. Results 179 patients entered; 178 followed • 1 partial responder • 54% with progression at end of IV schedule • All had progression after 7 months • Median survival: 4.8 months

  33. Conclusion “It must be concluded that amygdalin (Laetrile) in combination with high doses of vitamins, pancreatic enzymes, and a diet of the type employed by ‘metabolic therapists’ is of no substantive value in the treatment of cancer. Further investigation of clinical use of such therapy is not justified.”

  34. Important Features of This Study • Well-defined cases and treatment • Protocol for patient evaluation and analysis • Objective endpoints • Complete data with nearly all patients meeting evaluability criteria; and • The study was described in sufficient detail so that it could be replicated

  35. Laetrile Study: What is the Comparison Group? Partial Response No Response Laetrile 1 174 175* * One patient was ineligible and 3 could not be evaluated

  36. Remarks by Commentators: “From a public health standpoint, it was unethical to conduct a clinical study that would supposedly test orthodox versus unorthodox treatments to resolve the laetrile controversy, but could not do so scientifically.” “These conclusions are not justified … there was no control group with which the group of treated patients could be compared.”

  37. Uncontrolled Trial of ART Interruption Skiest DJ et al. JID 2007; 195:1426-1436. Purpose: To determine safety of ART interruption.

  38. Eligibility Criteria 1. CD4+ > 350 cells/mm3 before 1st ART and currently 2. HIV RNA <55,000 copies/mL 3. Combination ART for at least 6 months 4. No prior AIDS events Treatment: ART interruption (TI) with strong recommendation to resume when CD4+ declined to < 250 cells.

  39. Outcomes: • Symptomatic HIV, AIDS, death or CD4+ <250 • Changes in CD4+ and HIV RNA • Signs, symptoms and laboratory abnormalities

  40. Results 167 patients entered; 144 completed 96 weeks of follow-up • 5 deaths • 2 patients with AIDS events • 2 with symptomatic (Category B) events • 54 patients with death, AIDS, Cat B, or CD4+ <250 • 26 grade ¾ symptoms or lab abnormalities

  41. Conclusion “In summary, …TI was not associated with rapid disease progression. TI in selected patients could avoid drug toxicity…but this possibility must be weighed against concerns about infrequent adverse events.”

  42. TI Study No AIDS or Death AIDS or Death TI 7 160 167

  43. Special Situations When Uncontrolled Study May Be Appropriate • No other treatment to use as control • Untreated patients have very poor prognosis • Treatment not expected to have serious side effects • Potential benefit to patients large and unambiguous • Result of study likely to be widely accepted • Byar D, et al. NEJM, Vol 323, 1990.

  44. Planned Observational Studies 1. Cross-Sectional – data collected at a single point in time (risk factors and disease endpoints measured simultaneously). 2. Case-Control - controls (non-cases) sampled from base population. 3. Prospective Follow-up (cohort) - controls (non-cases) not sampled; risk factor measurements made before endpoints occur.

  45. Did Investigator Assign Exposures? Yes No Observational study Experimental study Random allocation? Comparison group? Yes No Yes No Analyticalstudy Descriptivestudy Non-randomised controlledtrial Randomised controlledtrial Direction? Exposure and outcome at the same time Exposure Outcome Exposure Outcome Case-controlstudy Cross-sectionalstudy Cohortstudy Grimes and Schulz, Lancet, 359:57-61, 2002.

  46. Cross-Sectional Study • National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – ongoing national survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics In 2007-2008 almost 17% of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years were obese http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

  47. Cross-Sectional StudyMRFIT: Association of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by ECG and hypertensive status at baseline of trial LVH No LVH Hypertensive 231 7,781 8,012 Normotensive 43 4,811 4,854 274 12,592 12,866 Prevalence of LVH among hypertensives = 231 / 8,012 = 2.9% Prevalence of LVH among normotensives = 43 / 4,854 = 0.9% Cross-sectional study + follow-up = cohort study.

  48. Cross-Sectional StudyAssociation of PCP and genderat baseline in trials and cohort studies carried out by the Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (CPCRA) PCP No PCP Men 371 1,189 2,260 Women 58 493 551 2,811 429 2,382 History of PCP among men = 371 / 2,260 = 16.4% History of PCP among women = 58 / 551 = 10.5% P-value = 0.001 for difference

  49. CD4+ Percent Distribution for Men and Women CD4+ Men Women Total < 50 22 13 20 50 - 99 11 6 10 100 - 149 8 7 8 150 - 199 7 8 8 ≥ 200 52 66 54 Total 100 100 100 Median 213 328 232

More Related