Clinical trial design in the neurocritical care unit

Neurocritical Care

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 6-19

  Hall, C E ^a   Mirski, M ^b   Palesch, Y Y ^c   Diringer, M N ^d   Qureshi, A I ^e   Robertson, C S ^f   Geocadin, R ^b   Wijman, C A C ^g   Le Roux, P D ^h   Suarez, Jose I ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^f BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Funding; Industry; Neurocritical care; NIH; Surrogate markers

Indexed keywords

BIOSTATISTICS; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; NEUROCRITICAL CARE; NEUROCRITICAL CARE UNIT; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CRITICAL CARE; HUMANS; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84861094797     PISSN: 15416933     EISSN: 15560961     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-011-9608-6     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, De Mets DL, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Summary of a national institutes of health workshop. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:485-502. (Pubitemid 32907433)
2. Duivenvoorden R, de Groot E, Stroes ES, Kastelein JJ. Surrogate markers in clinical trials: challenges and opportunities. Atherosclerosis. 2009;76:121-4.
3. Baker SG, Kramer BS. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:16.
4. Boissel JP, Collet JP, Moleur P, Haugh M. Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;43:235-44.
5. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8:431-40. (Pubitemid 19105891)
6. NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581-7.
7. Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Have randomized controlled trials of neuroprotective drugs been underpowered?: an illustration of three statistical principles. Stroke. 2001;32:669-74.
8. Grotta J. Neuroprotection is unlikely to be effective in humans using current trial designs. Stroke. 2002;33:306-7. (Pubitemid 34052232)
9. Tilley BC, Marler J, Geller N, et al. Use of global test for multiple outcomes in stroke trials with application to the national institute of neurological disorders and stroke t-PA stroke trial. Stroke. 1996;27:2136-42. (Pubitemid 26372593)
10. Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JD. Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcome increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements. J Clinical Epidemiol. 2004;57:454-60. (Pubitemid 38758048)
11. Saver J, Yafeh B. Confirmation of tPA treatment effect by baseline severity-adjusted end point reanalysis of the NINDS-tPA stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38:414-6. (Pubitemid 46184318)
12. Saver J. Number needed to treat estimates incorporating effects over the entire range of clinical outcomes. Arch Neurol. 2004;61: 1066-70.
13. Saver JL. Clinical impact of NXY-059 demonstrated I n the SAINT I trial: derivation of number needed to treat for benefit over entire range of functional disability. Stroke. 2007;38:1515-8. (Pubitemid 46684167)
14. Kieser M, Rohmel J, Friede T. Power and sample size determination when assessing the clinical relevance of trial results by 'responder analyses'. Stat Med. 2004;23:3287-305. (Pubitemid 39462088)
15. Adams HP, Leclerc JR, Bluhmki E, et al. Measuring outcomes as a function of baseline severity of ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18:124-9. (Pubitemid 39077847)
16. Senn S, Julious S. Measurement in clinical trials: a neglected issue for statisticians? Stat Med. 2009;28:3189-209.
17. Murray GD, Barer D, Choi S, et al. Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22:511-7. (Pubitemid 40726979)
18. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Medicine. 2008;5:1251-61.
19. Mandava P, Kent TA. A method to determine stroke trial success using multidimensional pooled control functions. Stroke. 2009;40:1803-10.
20. Bender R, Grouven U. Using binary logistic regression models for ordinal data with non-proportional odds. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:809-16. (Pubitemid 28470122)
21. Valenta Z, Pitha J, Poledne. Proportional odds logistic regression-effective means of dealing with limited uncertainty in dichotomizing clinical outcomes. Stat Med. 2006;25:4227-34. (Pubitemid 46023767)
22. The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collboration. Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Stroke. 2007;38:1911-5.
23. Savitz SI, Lew R, Bluhmki E, et al. Shift analysis versus dichotomization of the modified Rankin scale outcome scores in the NINDS and ECASS II Trials. Stroke. 2007;38:3205-12. (Pubitemid 350175738)
24. Koziol JA, Feng AC. On the analysis and interpretation of outcome measures in stroke clinical trials: lessons from the SAINT I Study of NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. Stoke. 2006;37: 2644-7. (Pubitemid 44454693)
25. Howard G. Nonconventional clinical trials designs. Stroke. 2007;38:804-8.
26. Fisher M, Hanley D, Howard G, et al. Recommendations from the STAIR V meeting on acute stroke trials, technology and outcomes. Stroke. 2007;38:245-8. (Pubitemid 46184280)
27. Saver JL. Novel end point analytic techniques and interpreting shifts across the entire range of outcome scales in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38:3055-62. (Pubitemid 350035704)
28. Saver JL, Gornbein J. Treatment effects for which shift or binary analyses are advantageous in acute stroke trials. Neurology. 2009;72:1310-5.
29. Fedorov V, Mannino F, Zhang R. Consequences of dichotomization. Pharm Stat. 2009;8:50-61.
30. Ginsberg MD, Hill MD, Palesch YY, Ryckborst KJ, et al. The alias pilot trial: a dose-escalation and safety study of albumin therapy for acute ischemic stroke-I: physiological responses and safety results. Stroke. 2006;37:2100-6. (Pubitemid 44309911)
31. http://www.nih.gov/. Accessed August 1, 2009. (NIH main).
32. http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html. Accessed August 1, 2009.(Institutes).
33. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/index.htm. Accessed August 1, 2009.(NINDS Home).
34. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/grant-mechanisms.htm. Accessed August 1, 2009. (NINDS Funding Mechanisms).
35. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical-research/index.htm.Accessed August 1, 2009. (NINDS office of clinical trials research) Personal Communication: Walter Koroshetz, MD, August 10, 2009.
36. Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1267-74. (Pubitemid 35284616)
37. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed August 5, 2009. (HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample).
38. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NIS-2008-INTRODUCTION.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2009. (HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample Introduction pdf 2008).
39. Qureshi AI, Suri MF, Nasar A, Kirmani JF, Ezzeddine MA, Divani AA, Giles WH. Changes in cost and outcome among US patients with stroke hospitalized in 1990 to 1991 and those hospitalized in 2000 to 2001. Stroke. 2007;38:2180-4. (Pubitemid 47012287)
40. NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581-7.
41. Lewandowski CA, Frankel M, Tomsick TA, Broderick J, Frey J, Clark W, Starkman S, Grotta J, Spilker J, Khoury J, Brott T. Combined intravenous and intra-arterial r-TPA versus intraarterial therapy of acute ischemic stroke: emergency management of stroke (EMS) bridging trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2598-605.
42. Brott TG, Hobson RW II, Howard G, et al. For the CREST investigators stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:11-23.
43. Qureshi AI, Hutson AD, Harbaugh RE, Stieg PE, Hopkins LN. North American trial of unruptured and ruptured aneurysms planning committee. Methods and design considerations for randomized clinical trials evaluating surgical or endovascular treatments for cerebrovascular diseases. Neurosurgery. 2004;54: 248-64.
44. Mayer SA, Brun NC, Begtrup K, For the FAST Trial Investigators, et al. Efficacy and safety of recombinant activated factor VII for acute intracerebral hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 2008;358: 2127-37. (Pubitemid 351679599)
45. Grubb RL, Jr., Powers WJ, Derdeyn CP, Adams HP, Jr., Clarke WR. The Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study. Neurosurg Focus, 2003;14. American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
46. del Zoppo GJ, Higashida RT, Furlan AJ, et al. PROACT: a phase II randomized trial of recombinant pro-urokinase by direct arterial delivery in acute middle cerebral artery stroke. Stroke. 1998; 29:4-11. (Pubitemid 28046933)
47. Furlan A, Higashida R, Wechsler L, et al. Intra-arterial prourokinase for acute ischemic stroke. The PROACT II study: a randomized controlled trial. Prolyse in acute cerebral thromboembolism. JAMA. 1999;282:2003-11.
48. IMS II Trial Investigators. The interventional management of stroke (IMS) II study. Stroke. 2007;38:2127-35.
49. Adams HP Jr, Effron MB, Torner J, For the AbESTT-II Investigators, et al. Emergency administration of abciximab for treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke: results of an international phase III trial: abciximab in emergency treatment of stroke trial (AbESTT-II). Stroke. 2008;39:87-99.
50. Tariq N, Fareed M, Suri K, Vazquez G, Novitzke JM, Qureshi AI. Imbalance in distribution of subjects recruited per center and risk of negative outcomes in acute stroke trials. Neurology. 2009; 72(Suppl 3):A292.
51. Clinical research at the national institute for neurological diseases and stroke analysis and recommendations. NINDS strategic planning modules: clinical module. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/about-ninds/plans/strategic-plan/strategic- planning-modules.htm. Accessed August 1, 2010.
52. McRae A, Weijer C. US federal regulations for emergency research: a practical guide and commentary. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:88-97.
53. Watters D, Sayre MR, Silbergleit R. Research conditions that qualify for emergency exception from informed consent. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:1040-4. (Pubitemid 41503530)
54. Contant C, McCullough LB, Mangus L, et al. Community consultation in emergency research. Crit Care Med. 2006;34: 2049-52. (Pubitemid 44305604)
55. Halperin H, Paradis N, Mosesso V Jr, et al. Recommendations for implementation of community consultation and public disclosure under the food and drug administration's ''exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research'': a special report from the American heart association emergency cardiovascular care committee and council on cardiopulmonary, perioperative and critical care: endorsed by theAmerican college of emergency physicians and the society for academic emergency medicine. Circulation. 2007;116:1855-63. (Pubitemid 350287110)