Adaptive design clinical trials: a review of the literature and ClinicalTrials.gov

Objectives: This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials. Design: Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators’ experiences with adaptive designs. Results: 142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs. Conclusions: Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis

Implementation and long-term efficacy of a multifaceted intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units of a low-middle-income country

Background: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) pose a significant risk to critically ill patients, particularly in intensive care units (ICU), and are a significant cause of hospital-acquired infections. We investigated whether implementation of a multifaceted intervention was associated with reduced incidence of CLABSIs.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study over nine years. We implemented a bundled intervention approach to prevent CLABSIs, consisting of a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP). The program was implemented in the Neonatal ICU, Medical ICU, and Surgical ICU departments at the Aga Khan University Hospital in Pakistan.Results: The three intervention ICUs combined were associated with an overall 36% reduction in CLABSI rates and a sustained reduction in CLABSI rates for \u3e a year (5 quarters). The Neonatal ICU experienced a decrease of 77% in CLABSI rates lasting ∼1 year (4 quarters). An attendance rate above 88% across all stakeholder groups in each CUSP meeting correlated with a better and more sustained infection reduction.Conclusions: Our multifaceted approach using the CUSP model was associated with reduced CLABSI-associated morbidity and mortality in resource-limited settings. Our findings suggest that a higher attendance rate (\u3e85%) at meetings may be necessary to achieve sustained effects post-intervention

Clarithromycin use and the risk of mortality and cardiovascular events: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND:Although studies reported increased cardiovascular (CV) risks in patients treated with macrolides, the risks remain controversial among clarithromycin (CLR) users. We aimed to summarize the association between CLR use and the risks of mortality and CV events. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with population exposed to CLR published until December 31st, 2018. These studies reported either all-cause mortality (primary outcome) or CV adverse events (secondary outcomes) based on multivariate models. Effect measures were synthesized by study design and follow-up duration (long-term, ≥ 1 year; short-term, ≤ 3 months; and immediate, ≤ 2 weeks). This study has been registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018089605). RESULTS:This meta-analysis included 13 studies (3 RCTs and 10 observational studies) and 8,351,815 subjects (1,124,672 cases and 7,227,143 controls). Overall, CLR use was not associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (pooled rate ratio RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.91-1.32), either among patients with or without comorbidities of cardiovascular diseases. Comparing CLR users to placebo, there is no additional risks of cardiac mortality (pooled RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.53-2.01), acute myocardial infarction (pooled RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.98-1.68), and arrhythmia (pooled RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.62-1.32). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggested no significant association between CLR use and subsequent long-term all-cause mortality, regardless having comorbidity of cardiovascular diseases or not. Further RCTs investigating the short-term CV risks of CLR use compared to alternative antibiotics are warranted, particularly in high-risk populations

Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims.

BackgroundTo the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications.Methods and findingsFor commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases

The Ambivalent Role of Religion for Sustainable Development: A Review of the Empirical Evidence

Until recently, academia has largely neglected the impact of religion on sustainable development. However, empirical studies have shown that religion remains important in many societies and that its importance has been increasing since the beginning of the new millennium. This paper reviews the empirical quantitative literature on the effect of religion on development from the last decade. We start by disaggregating the concepts of religion and sustainable development into four religious and three developmental dimensions and proposing a framework to identify causal mechanisms. Numerous mechanisms are possible, and this complexity explains why only a few uncontested findings exist. Religion is ambivalent vis-à-vis development: although religious dimensions exert a positive influence on physical and mental health as well as on general well-being, scholars have found a negative relationship between religious dimensions and both income and gender equality. Studies agree that the dominance of one religious group together with parallel ethnic and religious cleavages increases the risk of conflict, while studies on the pro-peace effects of religious factors are largely missing. Methodological challenges relate to the availability of fine-grained data, especially for non-Western countries, and the use of concepts and definitions. Most importantly, the study of religion and development requires methods that allow for causal inference