A standardised Phase III clinical trial framework to assess therapeutic interventions for Lassa fever

Background Only one recommendation currently exists for the treatment of Lassa fever (LF), which is ribavirin administered in conjunction with supportive care. This recommendation is primarily based on evidence generated from a single clinical trial that was conducted more than 30 years ago–the methodology and results of which have recently come under scrutiny. The requirement for novel therapeutics and reassessment of ribavirin is therefore urgent. However, a significant amount of work now needs to be undertaken to ensure that future trials for LF can be conducted consistently and reliably to facilitate the efficient generation of evidence. Methodology We convened a consultation group to establish the position of clinicians and researchers on the core components of future trials. A Core Eligibility Criteria (CEC), Core Case Definition (CCD), Core Outcome Set (COS) and Core Data Variables (CDV) were developed through the process of a multi-stakeholder consultation that took place using a modified-Delphi methodology. Results A consensus position was achieved for each aspect of the framework, which accounts for the inclusion of pregnant women and children in future LF clinical trials. The framework consists of 8 core criteria, as well as additional considerations for trial protocols. Conclusions This project represents the first step towards delineating the clinical development pathway for new Lassa fever therapeutics, following a period of 40 years without advancement. Future planned projects will bolster the work initiated here to continue the advancement of LF clinical research through a regionally-centred, collaborative methodology, with the aim of delineating a clear pathway through which LF clinical trials can progress efficiently and ensure sustainable investments are made in research capacity at a regional level.

Download Full-text

A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Clinical Trial Population Representativeness Using Electronic Health Records Data

Applied Clinical Informatics ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1733846 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (04) ◽

pp. 816-825

Author(s):

Yingcheng Sun ◽

Alex Butler ◽

Ibrahim Diallo ◽

Jae Hyun Kim ◽

Casey Ta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Electronic Health Records ◽

The United States ◽

Design Stage ◽

Common Data Model ◽

Free Text ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Health Records ◽

Electronic Health

Abstract Background Clinical trials are the gold standard for generating robust medical evidence, but clinical trial results often raise generalizability concerns, which can be attributed to the lack of population representativeness. The electronic health records (EHRs) data are useful for estimating the population representativeness of clinical trial study population. Objectives This research aims to estimate the population representativeness of clinical trials systematically using EHR data during the early design stage. Methods We present an end-to-end analytical framework for transforming free-text clinical trial eligibility criteria into executable database queries conformant with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model and for systematically quantifying the population representativeness for each clinical trial. Results We calculated the population representativeness of 782 novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials and 3,827 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) trials in the United States respectively using this framework. With the use of overly restrictive eligibility criteria, 85.7% of the COVID-19 trials and 30.1% of T2DM trials had poor population representativeness. Conclusion This research demonstrates the potential of using the EHR data to assess the clinical trials population representativeness, providing data-driven metrics to inform the selection and optimization of eligibility criteria.

Download Full-text

Are clinical trial eligibility criteria an accurate reflection of a real-world population of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients?

Current Oncology ◽

10.3747/co.25.3978 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

K. Al-Baimani ◽

H. Jonker ◽

T. Zhang ◽

G.D. Goss ◽

S.A. Laurie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Advanced Nsclc ◽

Small Cell ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Ecog Ps

Background Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) represents a major health issue globally. Systemic treatment decisions are informed by clinical trials, which, over years, have improved the survival of patients with advanced nsclc. The applicability of clinical trial results to the broad lung cancer population is unclear because strict eligibility criteria in trials generally select for optimal patients.Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with advanced nsclc seen in outpatient consultation at our academic institution between September 2009 and September 2012, collecting data about patient demographics and cancer characteristics, treatment, and survival from hospital and pharmacy records. Two sets of arbitrary trial eligibility criteria were applied to the cohort. Scenario A stipulated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ecog ps) 0–1, no brain metastasis, creatinine less than 120 μmol/L, and no second malignancy. Less-strict scenario B stipulated ecog ps 0–2 and creatinine less than 120 μmol/L. We then used the two scenarios to analyze treatment and survival of patients by trial eligibility status.Results The 528 included patients had a median age of 67 years, with 55% being men and 58% having adenocarcinoma. Of those 528 patients, 291 received at least 1 line of palliative systemic therapy. Using the scenario A eligibility criteria, 73% were trial-ineligible. However, 46% of “ineligible” patients actually received therapy and experienced survival similar to that of the “eligible” treated patients (10.2 months vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.10). Using the scenario B criteria, only 35% were ineligible, but again, the survival of treated patients was similar in the ineligible and eligible groups (10.1 months vs. 10.9 months, p = 0.57).Conclusions Current trial eligibility criteria are often strict and limit the enrolment of patients in clinical trials. Our results suggest that, depending on the chosen drug, its toxicities and tolerability, eligibility criteria could be carefully reviewed and relaxed.

Download Full-text

The case for introducing pre-registered confirmatory pharmacological pre-clinical studies

Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism ◽

10.1177/0271678x18760109 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 38 (5) ◽

pp. 749-754 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Olivia Kiwanuka ◽

Bo-Michael Bellander ◽

Anders Hånell

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Brain Injury ◽

Network Analysis ◽

Clinical Studies ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trial ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽

Experimental Drugs

When evaluating the design of pre-clinical studies in the field of traumatic brain injury, we found substantial differences compared to phase III clinical trials, which in part may explain the difficulties in translating promising experimental drugs into approved treatments. By using network analysis, we also found cases where a large proportion of the studies evaluating a pre-clinical treatment was performed by inter-related researchers, which is potentially problematic. Subjecting all pre-clinical trials to the rigor of a phase III clinical trial is, however, likely not practically achievable. Instead, we repeat the call for a distinction to be made between exploratory and confirmatory pre-clinical studies.

Download Full-text

A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/003588407x179125 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 89 (3) ◽

pp. 207-211 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

JF Thorpe ◽

S Jain ◽

TH Marczylo ◽

AJ Gescher ◽

WP Steward ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Prevention ◽

Age Of Onset ◽

Cancer Chemoprevention ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽

Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽

Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Download Full-text

Safety and Effectiveness of Favipiravir for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Rapid Review of Available Evidence

Health Technology Assessment in Action ◽

10.18502/htaa.v4i1.5862 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh ◽

Morteza Arab-Zozani

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Therapeutic Potential ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Clinical Trial Registration ◽

Registration System ◽

Novel Coronavirus ◽

First Time

Context: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) appeared for the first time in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Due to the lack of unified and integrated evidence for Favipiravir, this study was conducted to rapidly review the existing evidence to help evidence-based decision-making on the therapeutic potential of this drug in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Evidence Acquisition: This study is a rapid Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By searching pertinent databases, the research team collected relevant articles and tried to create a policy guide through a thematic approach. This rapid review was done in four steps: (1) Searching for evidence through databases; (2) screening the evidence considering eligibility criteria; (3) data extraction; and (4) analyzing the data through thematic analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion criteria, four studies were finally found, including three review studies and a clinical trial that was temporarily removed by its publisher from the journal’s website. After searching the sources mentioned in the articles, two ongoing clinical trials were found in China. Also, by searching the clinical trial website, www.clinicaltrials.gov, five clinical trials were found in the search. The result of the search in the clinical trial registration system in Iran showed a study that is in the process of patient recruitment. A limited number of other articles were found, mostly in the form of reflections from physicians or researchers and letters to editors who have predicted the drug’s performance on SARS-CoV-2, which needs further clinical study to be approved. Conclusions: With the available evidence, it is not possible to make a definite conclusion about the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Download Full-text

2166

Journal of Clinical and Translational Science ◽

10.1017/cts.2017.59 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 1 (S1) ◽

pp. 12-12

Author(s):

Jianyin Shao ◽

Ram Gouripeddi ◽

Julio C. Facelli

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Power Distribution ◽

Large Scale ◽

Search Space ◽

Free Text ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Clinical Notes ◽

Semantic Concepts ◽

Mimic Iii

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This poster presents a detailed characterization of the distribution of semantic concepts used in the text describing eligibility criteria of clinical trials reported to ClincalTrials.gov and patient notes from MIMIC-III. The final goal of this study is to find a minimal set of semantic concepts that can describe clinical trials and patients for efficient computational matching of clinical trial descriptions to potential participants at large scale. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We downloaded the free text describing the eligibility criteria of all clinical trials reported to ClinicalTrials.gov as of July 28, 2015, ~195,000 trials and ~2,000,000 clinical notes from MIMIC-III. Using MetaMap 2014 we extracted UMLS concepts (CUIs) from the collected text. We calculated the frequency of presence of the semantic concepts in the texts describing the clinical trials eligibility criteria and patient notes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The results show a classical power distribution, Y=210X(−2.043), R2=0.9599, for clinical trial eligibility criteria and Y=513X(−2.684), R2=0.9477 for MIMIC patient notes, where Y represents the number of documents in which a concept appears and X is the cardinal order the concept ordered from more to less frequent. From this distribution, it is possible to realize that from the over, 100,000 concepts in UMLS, there are only ~60,000 and 50,000 concepts that appear in less than 10 clinical trial eligibility descriptions and MIMIC-III patient clinical notes, respectively. This indicates that it would be possible to describe clinical trials and patient notes with a relatively small number of concepts, making the search space for matching patients to clinical trials a relatively small sub-space of the overall UMLS search space. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our results showing that the concepts used to describe clinical trial eligibility criteria and patient clinical notes follow a power distribution can lead to tractable computational approaches to automatically match patients to clinical trials at large scale by considerably reducing the search space. While automatic patient matching is not the panacea for improving clinical trial recruitment, better low cost computational preselection processes can allow the limited human resources assigned to patient recruitment to be redirected to the most promising targets for recruitment.

Download Full-text

Reducing patient eligibility criteria in cancer clinical trials.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1996.14.4.1364 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 1364-1370 ◽

Cited By ~ 89

Author(s):

S L George

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Sample Size ◽

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Eligibility Criterion ◽

Cancer Clinical Trials ◽

Recent Trial ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Eligibility Requirements

PURPOSE To discuss patient eligibility criteria in phase III cancer clinical trials in the larger setting of the complexity of these trials, to review the various reasons for imposing restrictive eligibility requirements, to discuss the problems caused by these requirements, to argue that these requirements should be greatly relaxed in most cancer clinical trials, to provide some guiding principles and practical suggestions to facilitate such a relaxation, and to give an example of how eligibility requirements were reduced in a recent clinical trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. METHODS Implicit and explicit reasons for including eligibility criteria in clinical trials are reviewed. Safety concerns and sample size issues receive special attention. The types of problems restrictive eligibility criteria cause with respect to scientific interpretation, medical applicability, complexity, costs, and patient accrual are described. RESULTS A list of three items that each eligibility criterion should meet in order to be included is proposed and applied to a recent trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. CONCLUSION Phase III clinical trials in cancer should have much broader eligibility criteria than the traditionally restrictive criteria commonly used. Adoption of less restrictive eligibility criteria for most studies would allow broader generalizations, better mimic medical practice, reduce complexity and costs, and permit more rapid accrual without compromising patient safety or requiring major increases in sample size.

Download Full-text

Obtaining Valid Laboratory Data in Clinical Trials Conducted in Resource Diverse Settings: Lessons Learned from a Microbicide Phase III Clinical Trial

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0013592 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 5 (10) ◽

pp. e13592 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Tania Crucitti ◽

Katrien Fransen ◽

Rashika Maharaj ◽

Tom Tenywa ◽

Marguerite Massinga Loembé ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Laboratory Data ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trial

Download Full-text

Recruitment of Infants with Sickle Cell Anemia to a Phase III Trial:Data from the BABY HUG Study.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v112.11.1429.1429 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 112 (11) ◽

pp. 1429-1429 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Lynn W Wynn ◽

Lane Faughnan ◽

Daner Li ◽

Winfred Wang ◽

Brenda Martin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Screening Tests ◽

Investigational Drug ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Double Blind ◽

Screening Process ◽

Factors Influencing

Abstract Background: Factors influencing participation in clinical trials have been reported, but few studies analyze the combination of issues which affect overall patient accrual. When designing clinical trials, investigators are aware that some potential subjects may not be candidates for research participation and other subjects will decline. Total sample size is further affected by protocol-defined eligibility. BABY HUG (NCT00006400) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial of hydroxyurea (HU), which had an enrollment goal of 200 infants, age 9–17 mo, with Hb SS or Sβ0-thalassemia. A number of screening tests (spleen scan, 99mTc-DTPA renal clearance, abdominal sonogram, transcranial Doppler ultrasound, neuropsychological testing, blood analyses) were required prior to study entry and at exit, with at least monthly follow-up visits during the 2-year study period. To enhance recruitment, an anonymized registry of potential subjects was created to identify factors affecting enrollment. Methods: BABY HUG study coordinators considered all infants with an FS/SS diagnosis on newborn screening who were less than age 17 mo. The coordinators developed an IRB-approved spreadsheet to record the number of potentially eligible subjects; whether parents were approached and, if not, why not; and reasons of those approached for participating or declining. Most of these reasons could be categorized into one of several common themes. Results: Of 1107 potential participants (23–132/center) identified between October 2003 and June 2007, 239 (22%) entered the screening process and 193 (17%) were randomized. More than 25% were not approached for various reasons, including poor adherence to standard clinical care or failing to meet eligibility criteria. Factors influencing enrollment decisions are shown in the figure. The willingness to contribute to medical knowledge, the hope of being randomized to receive the investigational drug (HU), and the desire for closer clinical care were the most common reasons for participating in BABY HUG. Conversely, fear of research, transportation problems, parental work schedules and the demanding nature of the study (with frequent blood samples and clinic visits) were the primary reasons for parents declining. Disease severity had less impact on decision-making, perhaps reflecting the often asymptomatic history of potential subjects. Conclusion: The time and effort required by multiple screening tests and frequent visits impact the willingness of eligible subjects to participate in a study. Similar trials may require a larger pool of potential participants than expected to meet accrual goals. Factors that influence subject availability and the decision-making process of participating families must be considered for successful recruitment. Figure Figure

Download Full-text

Cancer clinical trials available in the community setting: A 5-year analysis from 1999–2004

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.6056 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 6056-6056

Author(s):

J. K. Keller ◽

J. Bowman ◽

J. A. Lee ◽

M. A. Mathiason ◽

K. A. Frisby ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Community Setting ◽

Disease Stage ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Major Barrier

6056 Background: Less than 5% of newly diagnosed cancer patients are accrued into clinical trials. In the community setting, the lack of appropriate clinical trials is a major barrier. Our prospective study in 2004 determined that 58% of newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our community-based cancer center didn’t have a clinical trial available appropriate for their disease stage. Among those with clinical trials, 23% were subsequently found to be ineligible (Go RS, et al. Cancer 2006, in press). However, the availability of clinical trials may vary from year to year. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to determine what clinical trials were available for newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our institution from June 1999-July 2004. The study also investigated the proportions of newly diagnosed patients who had a clinical trial available appropriate for type and stage of disease and patients accrued. Results: Over the 5-year period, 207 (82, 87, 99, 102, 117, years 1–5, respectively) trials were available. Most (50.7%) trials were for the following cancers: breast (15.5%), lung (13.5%), head and neck (7.7%), colorectal (7.2%) and lymphoma (6.8%). ECOG (53%), RTOG (26%), and CTSU (9%) provided the majority of the trials. A total of 5,776 new adult cancer patients were seen during this period. Overall, 60% of the patients had a trial available appropriate for type and stage of their cancer, but only 103 (3%) were enrolled. There was a significant upward trend in the proportions of patients with available trials over the years (60.2%, 55.9%, 59.2%, 60.7%, 63.9%, years 1–5, respectively; Mantel-Haenszel P=.008). The proportion of patients with a trial available was highest for prostate (97.3%), lung (90.9%), and breast (73.9%), and lowest for melanoma (17.1%), renal (11.6%), and bladder (7.2%). The majority of patients accrued to trials had the following cancers: breast (32%), lung (17%), lymphoma (9%), colon (7%), and prostate (5%). Conclusions: Nearly half of the newly diagnosed adult patients at our center had no trials available appropriate for type and stage of their cancers. It is likely that if strict clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied, approximately 2/3 of our patients would not be eligible for a clinical trial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text