The dog-leg: an alternative to a cross-over design for pragmatic clinical trials in relatively stable populations

Background: A cross-over trial design is more powerful than a parallel groups design, but requires that treatment effects do not carry over from one period of the trial to the next. We focus here on interventions in chronic disease populations where the control is routine care: in such cases we cannot assume the intervention effect is easily washed out in crossing over from the experimental intervention back to the control. Methods: We introduce an alternative trial design for these situations, and investigate its performance. One group is assessed before and after the experimental intervention, whereas two other groups provide respective, independent treatment comparisons in each period. We call this a dog-leg design because of the pattern of assessments in the three groups. The dog-leg design is reminiscent of a stepped wedge design, but with a reduced schedule of assessments and with the notable difference that not all groups receive the intervention. Results: If the correlation between baseline and follow-up is <0.72, the dog-leg design is more efficient than a parallel groups design with a baseline assessment. The dog-leg design also requires fewer assessments in total than a parallel groups design where participants are only assessed once, at follow-up. Conclusions: The dog-leg design is simple, and has some attractive properties. Though there is a risk of differential attrition in the three arms, the design’s good performance relative to alternatives makes it a useful addition to the methodologist’s toolkit

Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials

OBJECTIVE: Although crossover trials enjoy wide use, standards for analysis and reporting have not been established. We reviewed methodological aspects and quality of reporting in a representative sample of published crossover trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for December 2000 and identified all randomized crossover trials. We abstracted data independently, in duplicate, on 14 design criteria, 13 analysis criteria, and 14 criteria assessing the data presentation. RESULTS: We identified 526 randomized controlled trials, of which 116 were crossover trials. Trials were drug efficacy (48%), pharmacokinetic (28%), and nonpharmacologic (30%). The median sample size was 15 (interquartile range 8-38). Most (72%) trials used 2 treatments and had 2 periods (64%). Few trials reported allocation concealment (17%) or sequence generation (7%). Only 20% of trials reported a sample size calculation and only 31% of these considered pairing of data in the calculation. Carry-over issues were addressed in 29% of trial's methods. Most trials reported and defended a washout period (70%). Almost all trials (93%) tested for treatment effects using paired data and also presented details on by-group results (95%). Only 29% presented CIs or SE so that data could be entered into a meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Reports of crossover trials frequently omit important methodological issues in design, analysis, and presentation. Guidelines for the conduct and reporting of crossover trials might improve the conduct and reporting of studies using this important trial design

Prenatal exposures and exposomics of asthma

This review examines the causal investigation of preclinical development of childhood asthma using exposomic tools. We examine the current state of knowledge regarding early-life exposure to non-biogenic indoor air pollution and the developmental modulation of the immune system. We examine how metabolomics technologies could aid not only in the biomarker identification of a particular asthma phenotype, but also the mechanisms underlying the immunopathologic process. Within such a framework, we propose alternate components of exposomic investigation of asthma in which, the exposome represents a reiterative investigative process of targeted biomarker identification, validation through computational systems biology and physical sampling of environmental medi