A systematic review of models to predict recruitment to multicentre clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Less than one third of publicly funded trials managed to recruit according to their original plan often resulting in request for additional funding and/or time extensions. The aim was to identify models which might be useful to a major public funder of randomised controlled trials when estimating likely time requirements for recruiting trial participants. The requirements of a useful model were identified as usability, based on experience, able to reflect time trends, accounting for centre recruitment and contribution to a commissioning decision.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of English language articles using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms included: randomised controlled trial, patient, accrual, predict, enrol, models, statistical; Bayes Theorem; Decision Theory; Monte Carlo Method and Poisson. Only studies discussing prediction of recruitment to trials using a modelling approach were included. Information was extracted from articles by one author, and checked by a second, using a pre-defined form.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 326 identified abstracts, only 8 met all the inclusion criteria. Of these 8 studies examined, there are five major classes of model discussed: the unconditional model, the conditional model, the Poisson model, Bayesian models and Monte Carlo simulation of Markov models. None of these meet all the pre-identified needs of the funder.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To meet the needs of a number of research programmes, a new model is required as a matter of importance. Any model chosen should be validated against both retrospective and prospective data, to ensure the predictions it gives are superior to those currently used.</p

Does HAART Efficacy Translate to Effectiveness? Evidence for a Trial Effect

Background: Patients who participate in clinical trials may experience better clinical outcomes than patients who initiate similar therapy within clinical care (trial effect), but no published studies have evaluated a trial effect in HIV clinical trials. Methods: To examine a trial effect we compared virologic suppression (VS) among patients who initiated HAART in a clinical trial versus in routine clinical care. VS was defined as a plasma HIV RNA #400 copies/ml at six months after HAART initiation and was assessed within strata of early (1996–99) or current (2000–06) HAART periods. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated using binomial models. Results: Of 738 persons initiating HAART, 30.6 % were women, 61.7 % were black, 30 % initiated therapy in a clinical trial and 67 % (n = 496) had an evaluable six month HIV RNA result. HAART regimens differed between the early and current periods (p,0.001); unboosted PI regimens (55.6%) were more common in the early and NNRTI regimens (46.4%) were more common in the current period. Overall, 78 % (95%CI 74, 82%) of patients achieved VS and trial participants were 16 % more likely to achieve VS (unadjusted RR 1.16, 95%CI 1.06, 1.27). Comparing trial to non-trial participants, VS differed by study period. In the early period, trial participants initiating HAART were significantly more likely to achieve VS than non-trial participants (adjusted RR 1.33; 95%CI 1.15, 1.54), but not in the current period (adjusted RR 0.98; 95%CI 0.87, 1.11). Conclusions: A clear clinical trial effect on suppression of HIV replication was observed in the early HAART period but not i

Rationale, design, implementation, and baseline characteristics of patients in the DIG trial: A large, simple, long-term trial to evaluate the effect of digitalis on mortality in heart failure

This article provides a detailed overview of the rationale for key aspects of the protocol of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial. It also highlights unusual aspects of the study implementation and the baseline characteristics. The DIG trial is a large, simple, international placebo-controlled trial whose primary objective is to determine the effect of digoxin on all cause mortality in patients with clinical heart failure who are in sinus rhythm and whose ejection fraction is less than or equal to 0.45. An ancillary study examines the effect in those with an ejection fraction > 0.45. Key aspects of the trial include the simplicity of the design, broad eligibility criteria, essential data collection, and inclusion of various types of centers. A total of 302 centers in the United States and Canada enrolled 7788 patients between February 1991 and September 1993. Follow-up continued until December 1995 with the results available in Spring 1996