Salvage therapy trials in invasive fungal disease: Challenges and opportunities

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 43, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1456-1460

  Powers, John H ^a,b,c,d  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPHOTERICIN B DEOXYCHOLATE; ANTIFUNGAL AGENT; GALACTOMANNAN;

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; MOULD; MYCOSIS; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SALVAGE THERAPY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; HUMANS; MYCOSES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SALVAGE THERAPY;

EID: 33751584092     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/508468     Document Type: Note

References (13)

1. Portnoy LG, Watkins MP. Experimental control. In: Foundations of clinical research. Portnoy and Watkins, eds. 2000:153-76.
2. Powers JH. Interpreting the results of clinical trials on antimicrobial agents. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Princples and practices of infectious disease. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2005:619-28.
3. Almyroudis NG, Kontoyiannis DP, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Issues related to the design and interpretation of clinical trials of salvage therapy for invasive mold infection. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:1449-55 (in this issue).
4. Senn S. Design and interpretation of clinical trials. In: Senn S, ed. Statistical issues in drug development. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, 1997:27-42.
5. Pocock SJ. The pros and cons of noninferiority trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2003; 17:483-90.
6. D'Arcy Hart P, A change in scientific approach: from alternation to randomised allocation in clinical trials in the 1940s. BMJ 1999; 319:572-3.
7. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288:321-33.
8. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, et al. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1358-61.
9. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet 2002; 359:966-70.
10. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being mislead? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125:605-13.
11. Baker SG, Kramer BS. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3:16.
12. Bennett JE, Powers J, de Pauw B, et al. Forum report: issues in the design of trials of drugs for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36(Suppl 3):S113-6.
13. Powers JH, Higgins KM. Itraconazole versus fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:580.