054 TrialResults-center: a web-based clinical trial results database given a direct access to the systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical trials in cardiology

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

Download Full-text

A living systematic review protocol for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations

Wellcome Open Research ◽

10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15821.1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 60 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Brittany J. Maguire ◽

Philippe J. Guérin

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Geographic Location ◽

Diagnostic Methods ◽

Future Research ◽

Strong Response ◽

Level Of Evidence

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website (COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.

Download Full-text

Rate of, and risk factors for, white matter hyperintensity growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis with implications for clinical trial design

Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry ◽

10.1136/jnnp-2021-326569 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. jnnp-2021-326569

Author(s):

Robin Brown ◽

Audrey Low ◽

Hugh S Markus

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

White Matter ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Population Characteristics ◽

Lesion Volume ◽

Sample Sizes ◽

Population Selection

BackgroundWhite matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are a highly prevalent MRI marker of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), which predict stroke and dementia risk, and are being increasingly used as a surrogate marker in clinical trials. However, the influence of study population selection on WMH progression rate has not been studied and the effect of individual patient factors for WMH growth are not fully understood.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on progression of WMHs in longitudinal studies to determine rates of WMH growth, and how these varied according to population characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors. We used these data to calculate necessary sample sizes for clinical trials using WMH as an endpoint.ResultsWMH growth rate was highest in SVD (2.50cc/year), intermediate in unselected stroke patients (1.29cc/year) and lower in patients with non-stroke cardiovascular disease, and with cognitive impairment. Age was significantly associated with progression (correlation coefficient 0.15cc/year, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.28cc/year) as was baseline lesion volume (0.6cc/year, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.06 cc/year). Both hypertension (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.46) and current smoking (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.16) were associated with WMH growth. Sample sizes for a clinical trial varied greatly with patient population selection and baseline lesion volume; estimates are provided.ConclusionsWMH progression varies markedly according to the characteristics of the population being studied and this will have a major impact on sample sizes required in a clinical trial. Our sample size estimates provide data for planning clinical trials using WMH as an outcome measure.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020191781.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Reiki Therapy on Pain Control, Anxiety, Stress: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trial Studies

Complementary Medicine Journal ◽

10.32598/cmja.11.2.1032.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 140-153

Author(s):

Mohamad Reza Jahantigh ◽

◽

Maryam Jahantigh Haghighi ◽

Mahdiye Jahantigh Haghighi ◽

Farnaz Jahantigh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Complementary Therapies ◽

Web Of Science ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Pain Anxiety ◽

Keywords Pain ◽

Relieve Pain ◽

Clinical Trial Results

Objective: Due to the increasing use and tendency to complementary therapies, they can be used to relieve pain and reduce anxiety and stress in patients. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effect of Reiki therapy on the control of pain, anxiety and stress. Methods: This is a systematic review. A search was conducted on clinical trials published from 2016 to 2019 in databases such as SID, MagIran, Pubmed, Nursing Consult, Elsevier, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar using the keywords Pain, Reiki, Anxiety, Stress, and Randomized Clinical Trial. Results: Initial search yielded 154 articles. Of these, 131 were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria, and finally 23 eligible clinical trials were selected for analysis. Conclusion: The use of complementary therapies, including Reiki therapy, has different results in different people. It is recommended to perform various studies in different countries to evaluate the effectiveness of reiki therapy.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib Based Regimens in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-141620 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 35-35

Author(s):

Anum Javaid ◽

Faryal Razzaq ◽

Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽

Muhammad Abu Zar ◽

Atif Sohail ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Placebo Group ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Newly Diagnosed

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy, and clinical trials with newer agents have shown improved patient outcomes. Ixazomib (Ixa) is a proteasome inhibitor and induces apoptosis in cancer cells. It is commonly used with immunomodulators for the treatment of MM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Ixazomib alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used the following MeSH and Emtree terms; "ixazomib" AND "Multiple Myeloma" from inception till 06/05/2020. We screened 1,558 articles and included 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N=901) and 12 non-randomized clinical trials (NRCT) (N=632). We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, observational studies, meta-analysis, and ongoing clinical trials that did not report interim efficacy outcomes. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In 15 clinical trials (N=1533), Ixa based regimens were used in patients with age range of 39-92 years. (Table 1) In 3 clinical trials (N=170), Ixa with Lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex) yielded a pooled overall response rate (ORR) of 90% (95% CI=0.82-0.94, I2=32%), a pooled complete response (CR) of 23% (95% CI=0.16-0.32, I2=24%) and a pooled ≥very good partial response and better (≥VGPR) of 39% (95% CI=0.24-0.57, I2 =76%) when used as induction therapy for NDMM patients. As consolidation therapy (N=88), pooled ORR was 91% (95% CI=0.79-0.97, I2=0), pooled CR was 36% (95% CI=0.27-0.47, I2=0) and pooled ≥VGPR was 70% (95% CI=0.53-0.84, I2=60%). (Fig 1-3) In 5 clinical trials (N=233), Ixa + cyclophosphamide (Cyc) + Dex yielded a pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76% (95% CI=0.70-0.81, I2 =0), 12% (95% CI=0.07-0.20, I2=44%), and 25% (95% CI=0.14-0.39, I2=78%), respectively. (Fig 1-3) The lower dose of Cyc 300mg/m2 had similar efficacy as 400mg/m2 with better safety profile in elderly patients. In a RCT (N=175) of Ixa with multiple combinations, Ixa + Dex yielded ORR 55% (95% CI=0.40-0.69), CR 14% (95% CI=0.07-0.28) and ≥VGPR 24% (95% CI=0.13-0.39). Ixa+ thalidomide (Thal) + Dex fostered ORR 82% (95% CI=0.70-0.90), CR 15% (95% CI=0.08-0.26), and VGPR 43% (95% CI=0.31-0.55). Ixa + bendamustine + Dex yielded ORR of 73% (95% CI=0.41-0.91), CR 9% (95% CI=0.01-0.44), and ≥VGPR 27% (95% CI=0.09-0.59). In one clinical trial (N=53), Ixa + melphalan (Mel) + prednisone (Pred) combination yielded pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 66% (95% CI=0.52-0.77), 13% (95% CI=0.06-0.25), and 30% (95% CI=0.19-0.44), respectively. In a phase II trial (N=40), Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Len + Dex yielded an ORR, CR and ≥VGPR of 97% (95% CI=0.84-1), 15% (95% CI=0.07-0.28), and 35% (95% CI=0.22-0.51) respectively. (Fig 1-3) In a phase III RCT by Dimopholous et al. (N=656), Ixa maintenance therapy after stem cell transplant (SCT) yielded an ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76%, 15%, and 54%, respectively. They observed 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with Ixa vs. placebo, median progression free survival (mPFS) was 26.5 months (95% CI 23·7-33·8) vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). Second malignancies were 3% in both ixazomib and placebo group. 27% of the patients in ixazomib group and 20% patients in placebo group experienced serious adverse events. In a clinical trial on unfit and frail patients (N=46) treated with Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Dex, pooled ORR and ≥VGPR were 83% (95% CI=0.69-0.91, I2=0), and 33% (95% CI=0.21-0.47, I2=0), respectively. (Fig 1-3) In the phase II trial, ORR, CR, and VGPR with ixazomib and lenalidomide were 64%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Conclusion: Ixa in combination with Len, Dex, Cyc, Dara, Mel, Pred is effective in the treatment of NDMM patients. In early phase trials, Ixa with Dara, Len, and Dexa showed the highest overall response as induction therapy. Ixazomib maintainance therapy prolongs PFS after SCT as compared to placebo and represents an additional option for post SCT maintainace therapy in NDMM patiens. The safety profile of Ixa was acceptable with most commonly encountered adverse events were hematological including neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Additional multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

“When Offered to Participate”: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute ◽

10.1093/jnci/djaa155 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Joseph M Unger ◽

Dawn L Hershman ◽

Cathee Till ◽

Lori M Minasian ◽

Raymond U Osarogiagbon ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cancer Control ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Clinical Trial Participation ◽

Black Patients

Abstract Background Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest. Conclusions More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin A for Neuropathic Pain

Toxins ◽

10.3390/toxins14010036 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 36

Author(s):

Anupam Datta Gupta ◽

Suzanne Edwards ◽

Jessica Smith ◽

John Snow ◽

Renuka Visvanathan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Neuropathic Pain ◽

Botulinum Toxin ◽

Botulinum Toxin A ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Small Scale ◽

Toxin A

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from January 2005 to June 2021 to update the evidence of Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in neuropathic pain (NP) in addition to quality of life (QOL), mental health, and sleep outcomes. We conducted a Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria analysis of RCTs from the following data sources: EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane database, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Meta-analysis of 17 studies showed a mean final VAS reduction in pain in the intervention group of 2.59 units (95% confidence interval: 1.79, 3.38) greater than the mean for the placebo group. The overall mean difference for sleep, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety, HADS depression, and QOL mental and physical sub-scales were, respectively, 1.10 (95% CI: −1.71, 3.90), 1.41 (95% CI: −0.61, 3.43), −0.16 (95% CI: −1.95, 1.63), 0.85 (95% CI: −1.85, 3.56), and −0.71 (95% CI: −3.39, 1.97), indicating no significance. BoNT-A is effective for NP; however, small-scale RCTs to date have been limited in evidence. The reasons for this are discussed, and methods for future RCTs are developed to establish BoNT-A as the first-line agent.

Download Full-text