Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis

Although meta-analyses are typically viewed as retrospective activities, they are increasingly being applied prospectively to provide up-to-date evidence on specific research questions. When meta-analyses are updated account should be taken of the possibility of false-positive findings due to repeated significance tests. We discuss the use of sequential methods for meta-analyses that incorporate random effects to allow for heterogeneity across studies. We propose a method that uses an approximate semi-Bayes procedure to update evidence on the among-study variance, starting with an informative prior distribution that might be based on findings from previous meta-analyses. We compare our methods with other approaches, including the traditional method of cumulative meta-analysis, in a simulation study and observe that it has Type I and Type II error rates close to the nominal level. We illustrate the method using an example in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Interim analyses of data as they accumulate in laboratory experimentation

BACKGROUND: Techniques for interim analysis, the statistical analysis of results while they are still accumulating, are highly-developed in the setting of clinical trials. But in the setting of laboratory experiments such analyses are usually conducted secretly and with no provisions for the necessary adjustments of the Type I error-rate. DISCUSSION: Laboratory researchers, from ignorance or by design, often analyse their results before the final number of experimental units (humans, animals, tissues or cells) has been reached. If this is done in an uncontrolled fashion, the pejorative term 'peeking' has been applied. A statistical penalty must be exacted. This is because if enough interim analyses are conducted, and if the outcome of the trial is on the borderline between 'significant' and 'not significant', ultimately one of the analyses will result in the magical P = 0.05. I suggest that Armitage's technique of matched-pairs sequential analysis should be considered. The conditions for using this technique are ideal: almost unlimited opportunity for matched pairing, and a short time between commencement of a study and its completion. Both the Type I and Type II error-rates are controlled. And the maximum number of pairs necessary to achieve an outcome, whether P = 0.05 or P > 0.05, can be estimated in advance. SUMMARY: Laboratory investigators, if they are to be honest, must adjust the critical value of P if they analyse their data repeatedly. I suggest they should consider employing matched-pairs sequential analysis in designing their experiments

Protecting Clinical Trial Participants and Protecting Data Integrity: Are We Meeting the Challenges?

Susan Ellenberg discusses alternative approaches towards evaluating data as it accumulates in clinical trials, and to protecting the integrity and preventing undue risks to participants, as the trial continues

Effectiveness of Cellulose Sulfate Vaginal Gel for the Prevention of HIV Infection: Results of a Phase III Trial in Nigeria

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of 6% cellulose sulfate vaginal gel in preventing male-to-female vaginal transmission of HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydial infection. METHODS: This Phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between November 2004 and March 2007 in Lagos and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. We enrolled 1644 HIV-antibody negative women at high risk of HIV acquisition. Study participants were randomized 1:1 to cellulose sulfate or placebo and asked to use gel plus a condom for each act of vaginal intercourse over one year of follow-up. The participants were evaluated monthly for HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydial infection, and for adverse events. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely after the data safety monitoring board of a parallel trial concluded that cellulose sulfate might be increasing the risk of HIV. In contrast, we observed fewer infections in the active arm (10) than on placebo (13), a difference that was nonetheless not statistically significant (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.3-1.8; p = 0.56). Rates of gonorrhea and chlamydial infection were lower in the CS group but the difference was likewise not statistically significant (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.1; p = 0.19 for the combined STI outcome). Rates of adverse events were similar across study arms. No serious adverse events related to cellulose sulfate use were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Cellulose sulfate gel appeared to be safe in the evaluated study population but we found insufficient evidence that it prevented male-to-female vaginal transmission of HIV, gonorrhea or chlamydial infection. The early closure of the trial compromised the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of cellulose sulfate against HIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00120770

SAVVY Vaginal Gel (C31G) for Prevention of HIV Infection: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Nigeria

The objective of this trial was to determine the effectiveness of 1.0% C31G (SAVVY) in preventing male-to-female vaginal transmission of HIV infection among women at high risk.This was a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Participants made up to 12 monthly follow-up visits for HIV testing, adverse event reporting, and study product supply. The study was conducted between September 2004 and December 2006 in Lagos and Ibadan, Nigeria, where we enrolled 2153 HIV-negative women at high risk of HIV infection. Participants were randomized 1 ratio 1 to SAVVY or placebo. The effectiveness endpoint was incidence of HIV infection as indicated by detection of HIV antibodies in oral mucosal transudate (rapid test) or blood (ELISA), and confirmed by Western blot or PCR testing. We observed 33 seroconversions (21 in the SAVVY group, 12 in the placebo group). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative probability of HIV infection at 12 months were 0.028 in the SAVVY group and 0.015 in the placebo group (2-sided p-value for the log-rank test of treatment effect 0.121). The point estimate of the hazard ratio was 1.7 for SAVVY versus placebo (95% confidence interval 0.9, 3.5). Because of lower-than-expected HIV incidence, we did not observe the required number of HIV infections (66) for adequate power to detect an effect of SAVVY. Follow-up frequencies of adverse events, reproductive tract adverse events, abnormal pelvic examination findings, chlamydial infections and vaginal infections were similar in the study arms. No serious adverse event was attributable to SAVVY use.SAVVY did not reduce the incidence of HIV infection. Although the hazard ratio was higher in the SAVVY than the placebo group, we cannot conclude that there was a harmful treatment effect of SAVVY

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual’s functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Methods/Design PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 ‘high-risk’ patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. Discussion The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design

Adaptive design methods in clinical trials – a review

In recent years, the use of adaptive design methods in clinical research and development based on accrued data has become very popular due to its flexibility and efficiency. Based on adaptations applied, adaptive designs can be classified into three categories: prospective, concurrent (ad hoc), and retrospective adaptive designs. An adaptive design allows modifications made to trial and/or statistical procedures of ongoing clinical trials. However, it is a concern that the actual patient population after the adaptations could deviate from the originally target patient population and consequently the overall type I error (to erroneously claim efficacy for an infective drug) rate may not be controlled. In addition, major adaptations of trial and/or statistical procedures of on-going trials may result in a totally different trial that is unable to address the scientific/medical questions the trial intends to answer. In this article, several commonly considered adaptive designs in clinical trials are reviewed. Impacts of ad hoc adaptations (protocol amendments), challenges in by design (prospective) adaptations, and obstacles of retrospective adaptations are described. Strategies for the use of adaptive design in clinical development of rare diseases are discussed. Some examples concerning the development of Velcade intended for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are given. Practical issues that are commonly encountered when implementing adaptive design methods in clinical trials are also discussed