Recruitment failure and futility were the most common reasons for discontinuation of clinical drug trials. Results of a nationwide inception cohort study in the Netherlands

Objectives The objective of the study was to identify the reasons for discontinuation of clinical drug trials and to evaluate whether efficacy-related discontinuations were adequately planned in the trial protocol. Study Design and Setting All clinical drug trials in the Netherlands, reviewed by institutional review boards in 2007, were followed until December 2015. Data were obtained through the database of the Dutch competent authority (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects [CCMO]) and a questionnaire to the principal investigators. Reasons for trial discontinuation were the primary outcome of the study. Three reasons for discontinuation were analyzed separately: all cause, recruitment failure, and efficacy related (when an interim analysis had demonstrated futility or superiority). Among the efficacy-related discontinuations, we examined whether the data monitoring committee, the stopping rule, and the moment of the interim analysis in the trial progress were specified in the trial protocol. Results Of the 574 trials, 102 (17.8%) were discontinued. The most common reasons were recruitment failure (33 of 574; 5.7%) and solely efficacy related (30 of 574; 5.2%). Of the efficacy-related discontinuations, 10 of 30 (33.3%) of the trial protocols reported all three aspects in the trial protocol, and 20 of 30 (66.7%) reported at least one aspect in the trial protocol. Conclusion One out of five clinical drug trials is discontinued before the planned trial end, with recruitment failure and futility as the most common reasons. The target sample size of trials should be feasible, and interim analyses should be adequately described in trial protocols

Reduced Vitamin K Status as a Potentially Modifiable Risk Factor of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019

BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure and thromboembolism are frequent in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Vitamin K activates both hepatic coagulation factors and extrahepatic endothelial anticoagulant protein S, required for thrombosis prevention. In times of vitamin K insufficiency, hepatic procoagulant factors are preferentially activated over extrahepatic proteins. Vitamin K also activates matrix Gla protein (MGP), which protects against pulmonary and vascular elastic fiber damage. We hypothesized that vitamin K may be implicated in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), linking pulmonary and thromboembolic disease. METHODS: 135 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were compared with 184 historical controls. Poor outcome was defined as invasive ventilation and/or death. Inactive vitamin K-dependent MGP (dp-ucMGP) and prothrombin (PIVKA-II) were measured, inversely related to extrahepatic and hepatic vitamin K status, respectively. Desmosine was measured to quantify the rate of elastic fiber degradation. Arterial calcification severity was assessed by computed tomography. RESULTS: Dp-ucMGP was elevated in COVID-19 patients compared to controls (p<0.001), with even higher dp-ucMGP in patients with poor outcomes (p<0.001). PIVKA-II was normal in 82.1% of patients. Dp-ucMGP was correlated with desmosine (p<0.001), and coronary artery (p=0.002) and thoracic aortic (p<0.001) calcification scores. CONCLUSIONS: Dp-ucMGP was severely increased in COVID-19 patients, indicating extrahepatic vitamin K insufficiency, which was related to poor outcome while hepatic procoagulant factor II remained unaffected. These data suggest a mechanism of pneumonia-induced extrahepatic vitamin K depletion leading to accelerated elastic fiber damage and thrombosis in severe COVID-19 due to impaired activation of MGP and endothelial protein S, respectively. A clinical trial could assess whether vitamin K administration improves COVID-19 outcomes

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early assisted discharge for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease exacerbations: the design of a randomised controlled trial

Background: Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) are the main cause for hospitalisation. These hospitalisations result in a high pressure on hospital beds and high health care costs. Because of the increasing prevalence of COPD this will only become worse. Hospital at home is one of the alternatives that has been proved to be a safe alternative for hospitalisation in COPD. Most schemes are early assisted discharge schemes with specialised respiratory nurses providing care at home. Whether this type of service is cost-effective depends on the setting in which it is delivered and the way in which it is organised. Methods/Design: GO AHEAD (Assessment Of Going Home under Early Assisted Discharge) is a 3-months, randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial. Patients admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation are either discharged on the fourth day of admission and further treated at home, or receive usual inpatient hospital care. Home treatment is supervised by general nurses. Primary outcome is the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an early assisted discharge intervention in comparison with usual inpatient hospital care for patients hospitalised with a COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes include effects on quality of life, primary informal caregiver burden and patient and primary caregiver satisfaction. Additionally, a discrete choice experiment is performed to provide insight in patient and informal caregiver preferences for different treatment characteristics. Measurements are performed on the first day of admission and 3 days, 7 days, 1 month and 3 months thereafter. Ethical approval has been obtained and the study has been registered. Discussion: This article describes the study protocol of the GO AHEAD study. Early assisted discharge could be an effective and cost-effective method to reduce length of hospital stay in the Netherlands which is beneficial for patients and society. If effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can be proven, implementation in the Dutch health care system should be considered. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR1129

Altimetry for the future: Building on 25 years of progress

In 2018 we celebrated 25 years of development of radar altimetry, and the progress achieved by this methodology in the fields of global and coastal oceanography, hydrology, geodesy and cryospheric sciences. Many symbolic major events have celebrated these developments, e.g., in Venice, Italy, the 15th (2006) and 20th (2012) years of progress and more recently, in 2018, in Ponta Delgada, Portugal, 25 Years of Progress in Radar Altimetry. On this latter occasion it was decided to collect contributions of scientists, engineers and managers involved in the worldwide altimetry community to depict the state of altimetry and propose recommendations for the altimetry of the future. This paper summarizes contributions and recommendations that were collected and provides guidance for future mission design, research activities, and sustainable operational radar altimetry data exploitation. Recommendations provided are fundamental for optimizing further scientific and operational advances of oceanographic observations by altimetry, including requirements for spatial and temporal resolution of altimetric measurements, their accuracy and continuity. There are also new challenges and new openings mentioned in the paper that are particularly crucial for observations at higher latitudes, for coastal oceanography, for cryospheric studies and for hydrology. The paper starts with a general introduction followed by a section on Earth System Science including Ocean Dynamics, Sea Level, the Coastal Ocean, Hydrology, the Cryosphere and Polar Oceans and the ‘‘Green” Ocean, extending the frontier from biogeochemistry to marine ecology. Applications are described in a subsequent section, which covers Operational Oceanography, Weather, Hurricane Wave and Wind Forecasting, Climate projection. Instruments’ development and satellite missions’ evolutions are described in a fourth section. A fifth section covers the key observations that altimeters provide and their potential complements, from other Earth observation measurements to in situ data. Section 6 identifies the data and methods and provides some accuracy and resolution requirements for the wet tropospheric correction, the orbit and other geodetic requirements, the Mean Sea Surface, Geoid and Mean Dynamic Topography, Calibration and Validation, data accuracy, data access and handling (including the DUACS system). Section 7 brings a transversal view on scales, integration, artificial intelligence, and capacity building (education and training). Section 8 reviews the programmatic issues followed by a conclusion

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care