Final Exam - Clinical Trials Flashcards
(64 cards)
Why does regression to the mean have more impact on the interpretation of uncontrolled (single arm) studies?
Regression to the mean can heavily influence the outcomes of uncontrolled studies because any extreme initial measurements tend to move towards the average upon subsequent measurements. Without a control group, it’s unclear whether changes are due to the intervention or natural variability.
Differentiate factors in the design and conduct of a trial that influence internal versus external validity.
Internal validity is influenced by factors within the study that ensure the observed effects are due to the intervention, not confounders (e.g., randomization, blinding). External validity is affected by factors that enable the generalization of the findings to other populations (e.g., participant diversity, setting realism).
Clinical trials are designed to answer a specific scientific questions. Briefly describe three aspects of the design that this question depends upon?
Three aspects include: 1) The population targeted, determining who the findings will apply to. 2) The intervention’s specifics, including dosage and duration. 3) The outcomes measured, deciding what effects are being assessed.
What defines the study population for a clinical trial?
The study population is defined by specific inclusion and exclusion criteria which may include factors like age, gender, disease stage, and other relevant medical conditions to ensure the population is appropriate for the research question.
Briefly describe three important considerations when developing eligibility criteria.
1) Inclusion of a population that can benefit from the intervention. 2) Exclusion of individuals at risk of harm from the study. 3) Selection of participants likely to comply and remain for the study duration with measurable endpoints.
Briefly describe one pro and one con that might arise from having restrictive eligibility criteria for a study population that is expected to have the greatest benefit from the intervention?
Pro: Increases the likelihood of observing the intervention’s intended effects. Con: Limits the generalizability of the results to a broader population.
Briefly describe one pro and one con that might arise from having broad eligibility criteria for a trial?
Pro: Enhances the generalizability of the study results to a wider population. Con: May dilute the intervention’s observed effects due to heterogeneity in the study population.
Briefly describe one pro and one con that might arise from using a run-in period to screen for adherence in a trial of an intervention with anticipated low adherence?
Pro: May improve the quality of the data by ensuring participants are likely to adhere. Con: Could bias the sample by excluding potentially non-adherent participants who might benefit from the intervention.
State three conditions under which a run-in period may be beneficial.
1) When assessing adherence is crucial for the intervention’s effectiveness. 2) To assess tolerability of active treatment. 3) To screen for placebo response e.g. in a study on pindolol + fluoxetine versus placebo + fluoxetine for depression, researchers eliminated subjects with 25% improvement in symptoms during single-blind placebo period .
Be able to briefly explain the rationale for particular inclusion/exclusion criteria. For example, in a trial evaluating an immunotherapy for lung cancer. Provide some rationale for the following criteria: a. Histologically documented metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer b. ECOG of 0 or 1 with life expectancy 6+ months c. Measurable lesions per RECIST v1.1 criterion d. Willing to stay within 1-hour of treatment site for 28 days
Criteria ensure participants have a confirmed diagnosis (a), are in relatively good health to tolerate the treatment (b), have quantifiable disease progression (c), and can manage the logistical demands of the trial (d).
If patients with elevated risk levels are to be randomized in a clinical trial, discuss the factors which would influence the amount of regression toward the mean that would be expected. How can regression toward the mean be reduced?
Factors include the variability and the correlation of measured risk across repeated measures.
To reduce regression, ensure precise measurement methods and consider averaging over multiple measurements.
Including a control group also helps in deducing whether or not the regression is due to treatment or natural variability.
A trial is planned to study the effect of drug treatment on CVD morbidity and mortality among participants with systolic BP 130-139 mmHg. One site plans to screen from the general population (e.g. shopping centers) and one site (an HMO) plans to screen all participants who had an elevated BP at their last examination. For which site do you anticipate that regression to the mean will be greater?
Regression to the mean is likely greater at the HMO site, where participants were pre-selected based on elevated BP, which may naturally decrease to average levels upon re-measurement.
Be able to explain the difference between the statistical hypotheses underlying superiority versus non-inferiority versus equivalence trials.
Superiority trials test if a new treatment is better than a control. Non-inferiority trials determine if a new treatment is not worse than a control by a pre-defined margin. Equivalence trials assess if a new treatment is statistically similar to a control within a specified range.
Be able to propose a non-inferiority margin based on historical effect estimates.
The non-inferiority margin is based on clinical judgement and historical data, aiming to preserve a clinically acceptable portion of the control treatment’s effect. A common approach is that the new treatment must retain 50% of the benefit of active control vs. placebo.
Be able to interpret the results of a non-inferiority trial based on a reported 95% confidence interval and the stated margin.
If the 95% confidence interval of the treatment effect difference excludes the non-inferiority margin (does not cross the margin), the new treatment can be considered non-inferior to the control.
How does the constancy assumption play a role in our ability to infer superiority of a newly established non-inferior therapy relative to a placebo?
The constancy assumption holds that the effect of the comparator (placebo or active control) remains consistent over time. Violations can lead to incorrect inferences about the new treatment’s superiority.
Briefly describe the concept of “biocreep”.
Biocreep refers to the gradual reduction in therapeutic effectiveness of new treatments approved based on non-inferiority to existing treatments, as each generation may only be nearly as good as and possibly worse than its predecessor.
A non-inferiority trial of a new treatment (treatment A) is being planned. The active control treatment (treatment B) to be used has been shown to be superior to no treatment – in an earlier trial the point estimate of the relative risk death for treatment B versus no treatment was 0.75. The investigators are planning to power their study to rule out a 25% higher death rate on treatment A versus B. Do you feel this is reasonable?
No, when choosing the non-inferiority margin, a common approach is that the new treatment must retain 50% of the benefit of active control vs. placebo. Thus, wanting to rule out a 12.5% at most is reasonable for a non-inferiority trial margin.
Why is an intention-to-treat analysis considered by some to be anti-conservative in a non-inferiority trial?
It includes all participants as originally allocated after randomization, regardless of whether they adhered to the treatment protocol or not. This approach can dilute the treatment effect because it includes data from participants who may not have followed the treatment regimen properly. This can lead to underestimation of the treatment effect relative to the control group. This can potentially lead to a false rejection of the null and conclusion that the new treatment is non-inferior to the standard treatment when it might actually be inferior.
- Define/describe what is meant by intention-to-treat analysis? Describe one pro and one con.
Intention-to-treat analysis is a strategy for analyzing data in which participants are included in the group to which they were originally assigned, regardless of whether they completed the intervention. Pro: Maintains randomization, reducing selection bias. Con: Non-adherence can dilute the estimated treatment effect.
- Define/describe what is meant by per-protocol analysis? Describe one pro and one con
Per-protocol analysis includes only participants who completed the intervention as planned, without significant deviation from the study protocol. Pro: May give a clearer estimate of the treatment effect among adherent participants. Con: Risk of bias from loss of randomization.
- What is an exclusion in the context of analysis? Should an exclusion be included in an ITT analysis?
An exclusion is the removal of participants from the analysis, often due to not meeting the study criteria or for deviations from the protocol.
Exclusions are generally avoided in intention-to-treat analyses to maintain the integrity of the randomization, although post-randomization exclusions can occur for critical issues.
- What is a withdrawal? Should a withdrawal be included in an ITT analysis?
A withdrawal is a participant who decides to discontinue their involvement in the study before it is completed, for any reason. In intention-to-treat analyses, withdrawals are included to preserve the initial random allocation and to minimize the potential for bias.
- Give an example of an “intention to treat”, “modified intention to treat” and “per protocol” or “on treatment: analysis.
In an intention-to-treat analysis, every participant randomized is included in the analysis based on the assigned groups, even if they did not complete the intervention. A modified intention-to-treat analysis might exclude those who never started the intervention but include all others. A per-protocol analysis would only include data from participants who completed the intervention strictly as planned.