Clinical trialist perspectives on the ethics of adaptive clinical trials: a mixed-methods analysis

Abstract Background In an adaptive clinical trial (ACT), key trial characteristics may be altered during the course of the trial according to predefined rules in response to information that accumulates within the trial itself. In addition to having distinguishing scientific features, adaptive trials also may involve ethical considerations that differ from more traditional randomized trials. Better understanding of clinical trial experts’ views about the ethical aspects of adaptive designs could assist those planning ACTs. Our aim was to elucidate the opinions of clinical trial experts regarding their beliefs about ethical aspects of ACTs. Methods We used a convergent, mixed-methods design employing a 22-item ACTs beliefs survey with visual analog scales and open-ended questions and mini-focus groups. We developed a coding scheme to conduct thematic searches of textual data, depicted responses to visual analog scales on box-plot diagrams, and integrated findings thematically. Fifty-three clinical trial experts from four constituent groups participated: academic biostatisticians (n = 5); consultant biostatisticians (n = 6); academic clinicians (n = 22); and other stakeholders including patient advocacy, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration representatives (n = 20). Results The respondents recognized potential ethical benefits of ACTs, including a higher probability of receiving an effective intervention for participants, optimizing resource utilization, and accelerating treatment discovery. Ethical challenges voiced include developing procedures so trial participants can make informed decisions about taking part in ACTs and plausible, though unlikely risks of research personnel altering enrollment patterns. Conclusions Clinical trial experts recognize ethical advantages but also pose potential ethical challenges of ACTs. The four constituencies differ in their weighing of ACT ethical considerations based on their professional vantage points. These data suggest further discussion about the ethics of ACTs is needed to facilitate ACT planning, design and conduct, and ultimately better allow planners to weigh ethical implications of competing trial designs.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111302/1/12910_2015_Article_22.pd

The S troke H yperglycemia I nsulin N etwork E ffort ( SHINE ) trial protocol: a randomized, blinded, efficacy trial of standard vs. intensive hyperglycemia management in acute stroke

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102726/1/ijs12045.pd

Intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous lorazepam for the prehospital treatment of status epilepticus in the pediatric population

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110729/1/epi12905.pd

Coagulopathy, Bleeding Events, and Outcome According to Rotational Thromboelastometry in Patients With Acute Liver Injury/Failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/169284/1/hep31767_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/169284/2/hep31767-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/169284/3/hep31767.pd

Sleep for Stroke Management and Recovery Trial (Sleep SMART): Rationale and methods

Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea is common among patients with acute ischemic stroke and is associated with reduced functional recovery and an increased risk for recurrent vascular events. Aims and/or hypothesis: The Sleep for Stroke Management and Recovery Trial (Sleep SMART) aims to determine whether automatically adjusting continuous positive airway pressure (aCPAP) treatment for obstructive sleep apnea improves clinical outcomes after acute ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. Sample size estimate: A total of 3062 randomized subjects for the prevention of recurrent serious vascular events, and among these, 1362 stroke survivors for the recovery outcome. Methods and design: Sleep SMART is a phase III, multicenter, prospective randomized, open, blinded outcome event assessed controlled trial. Adults with recent acute ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and no contraindication to aCPAP are screened for obstructive sleep apnea with a portable sleep apnea test. Subjects with confirmed obstructive sleep apnea but without predominant central sleep apnea proceed to a run-in night of aCPAP. Subjects with use (≥4 h) of aCPAP and without development of significant central apneas are randomized to aCPAP plus usual care or care-as-usual for six months. Telemedicine is used to monitor and facilitate aCPAP adherence remotely. Study outcomes: Two separate primary outcomes: (1) the composite of recurrent acute ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and all-cause mortality (prevention) and (2) the modified Rankin scale scores (recovery) at six- and three-month post-randomization, respectively. Discussion: Sleep SMART represents the first large trial to test whether aCPAP for obstructive sleep apnea after stroke/transient ischemic attack reduces recurrent vascular events or death, and improves functional recovery

Challenges in planning and initiating a randomized clinical study of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) is a controversial topic, especially in patients with no objective findings on laboratory or imaging studies (SOD type III). The value of ERCP manometry with sphincterotomy is unproven and carries significant risks

Can patient and pain characteristics predict manometric sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in patients with clinically suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction?

Biliopancreatic-type postcholecystectomy pain, without significant abnormalities on imaging and laboratory test results, has been categorized as “suspected” sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) type III. Clinical predictors of “manometric” SOD are important to avoid unnecessary ERCP, but are unknown

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

SpHincterotomy for Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis Randomized Trial: Rationale, Methodology, and Potential Implications

Objectives: In patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP), pancreas divisum, and no other etiologic factors, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (miES) is often performed to enlarge the minor papillary orifice, based on limited data. The aims of this study are to describe the rationale and methodology of a sham-controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that miES reduces the risk of acute pancreatitis. Methods: The SpHincterotomy for Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis (SHARP) trial is a multicenter, international, sham-controlled, randomized trial comparing endoscopic ultrasound + ERCP with miES vs. endoscopic ultrasound + sham for the management of ARP. A total of 234 consented patients having two or more discrete episodes of acute pancreatitis, pancreas divisum confirmed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and no other clear etiology for acute pancreatitis will be randomized. Both cohorts will be followed for a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 48 months. Results: The trial is powered to detect a 33% risk reduction of acute pancreatitis frequency. Conclusions: The SHARP trial will determine whether ERCP with miES benefits patients with idiopathic ARP and pancreas divisum. Trial planning has informed the importance of blinded outcome assessors and long-term follow-up