An evaluation of culture results during treatment for tuberculosis as surrogate endpoints for treatment failure and relapse.

It is widely acknowledged that new regimens are urgently needed for the treatment of tuberculosis. The primary endpoint in the Phase III trials is a composite outcome of failure at the end of treatment or relapse after stopping treatment. Such trials are usually both long and expensive. Valid surrogate endpoints measured during or at the end of treatment could dramatically reduce both the time and cost of assessing the effectiveness of new regimens. The objective of this study was to evaluate sputum culture results on solid media during treatment as surrogate endpoints for poor outcome. Data were obtained from twelve randomised controlled trials conducted by the British Medical Research Council in the 1970s and 80s in East Africa and East Asia, consisting of 6974 participants and 49 different treatment regimens. The month two culture result was shown to be a poor surrogate in East Africa but a good surrogate in Hong Kong. In contrast, the month three culture was a good surrogate in trials conducted in East Africa but not in Hong Kong. As well as differences in location, ethnicity and probable strain of Mycobacteria tuberculosis, Hong Kong trials more often evaluated regimens with rifampicin throughout and intermittent regimens, and patients in East African trials more often presented with extensive cavitation and were slower to convert to culture negative during treatment. An endpoint that is a summary measure of the longitudinal profile of culture results over time or that is able to detect the presence of M. tuberculosis later in treatment is more likely to be a better endpoint for a phase II trial than a culture result at a single time point and may prove to be an acceptable surrogate. More data are needed before any endpoint can be used as a surrogate in a confirmatory phase III trial

Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines. DESIGN: Review of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). DATA SOURCES: Ovid (MEDLINE). METHODS: We searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used. RESULTS: A total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice

World TB Day 2016: an interview with leading experts in tuberculosis research.

In this interview, we talk to leading tuberculosis (TB) experts from University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine about the current challenges in TB research. The video of this interview is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Die7MQBec&feature=youtu.be . The video can also be downloaded via Additional file 1

Rethinking non-inferiority: a practical trial design for optimising treatment duration.

Background Trials to identify the minimal effective treatment duration are needed in different therapeutic areas, including bacterial infections, tuberculosis and hepatitis C. However, standard non-inferiority designs have several limitations, including arbitrariness of non-inferiority margins, choice of research arms and very large sample sizes. Methods We recast the problem of finding an appropriate non-inferior treatment duration in terms of modelling the entire duration-response curve within a pre-specified range. We propose a multi-arm randomised trial design, allocating patients to different treatment durations. We use fractional polynomials and spline-based methods to flexibly model the duration-response curve. We call this a 'Durations design'. We compare different methods in terms of a scaled version of the area between true and estimated prediction curves. We evaluate sensitivity to key design parameters, including sample size, number and position of arms. Results A total sample size of ~ 500 patients divided into a moderate number of equidistant arms (5-7) is sufficient to estimate the duration-response curve within a 5% error margin in 95% of the simulations. Fractional polynomials provide similar or better results than spline-based methods in most scenarios. Conclusion Our proposed practical randomised trial 'Durations design' shows promising performance in the estimation of the duration-response curve; subject to a pending careful investigation of its inferential properties, it provides a potential alternative to standard non-inferiority designs, avoiding many of their limitations, and yet being fairly robust to different possible duration-response curves. The trial outcome is the whole duration-response curve, which may be used by clinicians and policymakers to make informed decisions, facilitating a move away from a forced binary hypothesis testing paradigm

Proposals on Kaplan-Meier plots in medical research and a survey of stakeholder views: KMunicate.

OBJECTIVES: To examine reactions to the proposed improvements to standard Kaplan-Meier plots, the standard way to present time-to-event data, and to understand which (if any) facilitated better depiction of (1) the state of patients over time, and (2) uncertainty over time in the estimates of survival. DESIGN: A survey of stakeholders' opinions on the proposals. SETTING: A web-based survey, open to international participation, for those with an interest in visualisation of time-to-event data. PARTICIPANTS: 1174 people participated in the survey over a 6-week period. Participation was global (although primarily Europe and North America) and represented a wide range of researchers (primarily statisticians and clinicians). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two outcome measures were of principal importance: (1) participants' opinions of each proposal compared with a 'standard' Kaplan-Meier plot; and (2) participants' overall ranking of the proposals (including the standard). RESULTS: Most proposals were more popular than the standard Kaplan-Meier plot. The most popular proposals in the two categories, respectively, were an extended table beneath the plot depicting the numbers at risk, censored and having experienced an event at periodic timepoints, and CIs around each Kaplan-Meier curve. CONCLUSIONS: This study produced a high response number, reflecting the importance of graphics for time-to-event data. Those producing and publishing Kaplan-Meier plots-both authors and journals-should, as a starting point, consider using the combination of the two favoured proposals

Drug-resistant tuberculosis treatments, the case for a phase III platform trial

Most phase III trials in drug-resistant tuberculosis have either been underpowered to quantify differences in microbiological endpoints or have taken up to a decade to complete. Composite primary endpoints, dominated by differences in treatment discontinuation and regimen changes, may mask important differences in treatment failure and relapse. Although new regimens for drug-resistant tuberculosis appear very effective, resistance to new drugs is emerging rapidly. There is a need for shorter, safer and more tolerable regimens, including those active against bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis. Transitioning from multiple regimen A versus regimen B trials to a single large phase III platform trial would accelerate the acquisition of robust estimates of relative efficacy and safety. Further efficiencies could be achieved by adopting modern adaptive platform designs. Collaboration among trialists, affected community representatives, funders and regulators is essential for developing such a phase III platform trial for drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil and memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (the DOMINO-AD trial).

OBJECTIVE: Most investigations of pharmacotherapy for treating Alzheimer's disease focus on patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms, with little evidence to guide clinical decisions when symptoms become severe. We examined whether continuing donepezil, or commencing memantine, is cost-effective for community-dwelling, moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial. A total of 295 community-dwelling patients with moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, already treated with donepezil, were randomised to: (i) continue donepezil; (ii) discontinue donepezil; (iii) discontinue donepezil and start memantine; or (iv) continue donepezil and start memantine. RESULTS: Continuing donepezil for 52 weeks was more cost-effective than discontinuation, considering cognition, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Starting memantine was more cost-effective than donepezil discontinuation. Donepezil-memantine combined is not more cost-effective than donepezil alone. CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is now available to inform clinical decisions and commissioning strategies so as to improve patients' lives whilst making efficient use of available resources. Clinical guidelines for treating moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, such as those issued by NICE in England and Wales, should be revisited. © 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd