Why are feasibility studies accessing routinely collected health data? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Feasibility trials are often undertaken to determine whether a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT) is achievable. In a recent review, 15 feasibility trials accessed routinely collected health data (RCHD) from UK national databases and registries. This paper looks at attributes of these trials and the reasons why they accessed RCHD. METHODS: We extracted data from all publicly available sources for the 15 feasibility studies found in a previous review of trials successfully accessing RCHD in the UK between 2013–2018 for the purpose of informing or supplementing participant data. We extracted trial characteristics, the registry accessed, and the way the RCHD was used. RESULTS: The 15 feasibility RCTs were conducted in a variety of disease areas, and were generally small (median sample size 100, range 41–4061) and individually randomised (60%, 9/15). The primary trial outcome was predominantly administrative (non-clinical) (80%, 12/15) such as feasibility of patient recruitment. They were more likely to recruit from secondary care (67%, 10/15) settings than primary (33%, 5/15). NHS Digital was the most commonly accessed registry (33% (5/15)) with SAIL databank (20% (3/15)), electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS) and Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANET) (each 13% 2/15) also being accessed. Where the information was clear, the trials used RCHD for data collection during the trial (47%, 7/15), follow-up after the trial (27%, 4/15) and recruitment (13%, 2/15). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, 15 feasibility trials successfully accessed UK RCHD. Feasibility trials would benefit, as with other trials, from guidance on reporting the use of RCHD in protocols and publications

Triggered or routine site monitoring visits for randomised controlled trials: results of TEMPER, a prospective, matched-pair study

Background/aims: In multi-site clinical trials, where trial data and conduct are scrutinised centrally with pre-specified triggers for visits to sites, targeted monitoring may be an efficient way to prioritise on-site monitoring. This approach is widely used in academic trials, but has never been formally evaluated. // Methods: TEMPER assessed the ability of targeted monitoring, as used in three ongoing phase III randomised multi-site oncology trials, to distinguish sites at which higher and lower rates of protocol and/or Good Clinical Practice violations would be found during site visits. Using a prospective, matched-pair design, sites that had been prioritised for visits after having activated ‘triggers’ were matched with a control (‘untriggered’) site, which would not usually have been visited at that time. The paired sites were visited within 4 weeks of each other, and visit findings are recorded and categorised according to the seriousness of the deviation. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sites with ≥1 ‘Major’ or ‘Critical’ finding not previously identified centrally. The study was powered to detect an absolute difference of ≥30% between triggered and untriggered visits. A sensitivity analysis, recommended by the study’s blinded endpoint review committee, excluded findings related to re-consent. Additional analyses assessed the prognostic value of individual triggers and data from pre-visit questionnaires completed by site and trials unit staff. // Results: In total, 42 matched pairs of visits took place between 2013 and 2016. In the primary analysis, 88.1% of triggered visits had ≥1 new Major/Critical finding, compared to 81.0% of untriggered visits, an absolute difference of 7.1% (95% confidence interval −8.3%, +22.5%; p = 0.365). When re-consent findings were excluded, these figures reduced to 85.7% versus 59.5%, (difference = 26.2%, 95% confidence interval 8.0%, 44.4%; p = 0.007). Individual triggers had modest prognostic value but knowledge of the trial-related activities carried out by site staff may be useful. // Conclusion: Triggered monitoring approaches, as used in these trials, were not sufficiently discriminatory. The rate of Major and Critical findings was higher than anticipated, but the majority related to consent and re-consent with no indication of systemic problems that would impact trial-wide safety issues or integrity of the results in any of the three trials. Sensitivity analyses suggest triggered monitoring may be of potential use, but needs improvement and investigation of further central monitoring triggers is warranted. TEMPER highlights the need to question and evaluate methods in trial conduct, and should inform further developments in this area

Changing platforms without stopping the train: experiences of data management and data management systems when adapting platform protocols by adding and closing comparisons.

Background There is limited research and literature on the data management challenges encountered in multi-arm, multi-stage platform and umbrella protocols. These trial designs allow both (1) seamless addition of new research comparisons and (2) early stopping of accrual to individual comparisons that do not show sufficient activity. FOCUS4 (colorectal cancer) and STAMPEDE (prostate cancer), run from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) at UCL, are two leading UK examples of clinical trials implementing adaptive platform protocol designs. To date, STAMPEDE has added five new research comparisons, closed two research comparisons following pre-planned interim analysis (lack of benefit), adapted the control arm following results from STAMPEDE and other relevant trials, and completed recruitment to six research comparisons. FOCUS4 has closed one research comparison following pre-planned interim analysis (lack of benefit) and added one new research comparison, with a number of further comparisons in the pipeline. We share our experiences from the operational aspects of running these adaptive trials, focusing on data management.Methods We held discussion groups with STAMPEDE and FOCUS4 CTU data management staff to identify data management challenges specific to adaptive platform protocols. We collated data on a number of case report form (CRF) changes, database amendments and database growth since each trial began.Discussion We found similar adaptive protocol-specific challenges in both trials. Adding comparisons to and removing them from open trials provides extra layers of complexity to CRF and database development. At the start of an adaptive trial, CRFs and databases must be designed to be flexible and scalable in order to cope with the continuous changes, ensuring future data requirements are considered where possible. When adding or stopping a comparison, the challenge is to incorporate new data requirements while ensuring data collection within ongoing comparisons is unaffected. Some changes may apply to all comparisons; others may be comparison-specific or applicable only to patients recruited during a specific time period. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to CRF and database design we implemented in these trials, particularly in relation to use and maintenance of generic versus comparison-specific CRFs and databases. The work required to add or remove a comparison, including the development and testing of changes, updating of documentation, and training of sites, must be undertaken alongside data management of ongoing comparisons. Adequate resource is required for these competing data management tasks, especially in trials with long follow-up. A plan is needed for regular and pre-analysis data cleaning for multiple comparisons that could recruit at different rates and periods of time. Data-cleaning activities may need to be split and prioritised, especially if analyses for different comparisons overlap in time.Conclusions Adaptive trials offer an efficient model to run randomised controlled trials, but setting up and conducting the data management activities in these trials can be operationally challenging. Trialists and funders must plan for scalability in data collection and the resource required to cope with additional competing data management tasks

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants : The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial

Funding: The Show RESPECT study was funded by the Medical Research Council through core grants to MRS at the MRC CTU at UCL for Trial Conduct Methodology (MC_UU12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) https://mrc.ukri.org/. The funder had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report and the decision to submit the article for publication. All authors had full access to the study data, including statistical reports and tables, and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Acknowledgments We are very thankful to the patients who participated in this study and the people who contributed to our Patient and Public Involvement activities. We are very grateful for the work of the Show RESPECT site teams in carrying out this study. A list of team members from sites can be found in S10 Table. We thank Eva Burnett, who is a patient representative on the Study Steering Group for Show RESPECT and ICON8, for her input on the design and conduct of this study and for her comments on this manuscript, and Amanda Hunn for her contributions to the steering group. We also acknowledge the hard work and diligence of Sierra Santana and Ania Spurdens, who were data managers for Show RESPECT. We also wish to thank the ICON8 trial team for their support of this project, particularly Andrew Clamp, Babasola Popoola, Francesca Schiavone, Jonathan Badrock, and Rick Kaplan. We also thank Julia Bailey for her advice and guidance on the qualitative aspect of this study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10−9) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group

Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease

Background: Experimental and clinical data suggest that reducing inflammation without affecting lipid levels may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis has remained unproved. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of canakinumab, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1β, involving 10,061 patients with previous myocardial infarction and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2 mg or more per liter. The trial compared three doses of canakinumab (50 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg, administered subcutaneously every 3 months) with placebo. The primary efficacy end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: At 48 months, the median reduction from baseline in the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was 26 percentage points greater in the group that received the 50-mg dose of canakinumab, 37 percentage points greater in the 150-mg group, and 41 percentage points greater in the 300-mg group than in the placebo group. Canakinumab did not reduce lipid levels from baseline. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years, the incidence rate for the primary end point was 4.50 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group, 4.11 events per 100 person-years in the 50-mg group, 3.86 events per 100 person-years in the 150-mg group, and 3.90 events per 100 person-years in the 300-mg group. The hazard ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the 50-mg group, 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07; P = 0.30); in the 150-mg group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.021); and in the 300-mg group, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.031). The 150-mg dose, but not the other doses, met the prespecified multiplicity-adjusted threshold for statistical significance for the primary end point and the secondary end point that additionally included hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization (hazard ratio vs. placebo, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P = 0.005). Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P = 0.31). Conclusions: Antiinflammatory therapy targeting the interleukin-1β innate immunity pathway with canakinumab at a dose of 150 mg every 3 months led to a significantly lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo, independent of lipid-level lowering. (Funded by Novartis; CANTOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01327846.

Effects of alirocumab on types of myocardial infarction: insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial

Aims  The third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) Task Force classified MIs into five types: Type 1, spontaneous; Type 2, related to oxygen supply/demand imbalance; Type 3, fatal without ascertainment of cardiac biomarkers; Type 4, related to percutaneous coronary intervention; and Type 5, related to coronary artery bypass surgery. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction with statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduces risk of MI, but less is known about effects on types of MI. ODYSSEY OUTCOMES compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated LDL-C (≥1.8 mmol/L) despite intensive statin therapy. In a pre-specified analysis, we assessed the effects of alirocumab on types of MI. Methods and results  Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Myocardial infarction types were prospectively adjudicated and classified. Of 1860 total MIs, 1223 (65.8%) were adjudicated as Type 1, 386 (20.8%) as Type 2, and 244 (13.1%) as Type 4. Few events were Type 3 (n = 2) or Type 5 (n = 5). Alirocumab reduced first MIs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.95; P = 0.003], with reductions in both Type 1 (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99; P = 0.032) and Type 2 (0.77, 0.61–0.97; P = 0.025), but not Type 4 MI. Conclusion  After ACS, alirocumab added to intensive statin therapy favourably impacted on Type 1 and 2 MIs. The data indicate for the first time that a lipid-lowering therapy can attenuate the risk of Type 2 MI. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below levels achievable with statins is an effective preventive strategy for both MI types.For complete list of authors see http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz299</p