Cargando…

A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials

BACKGROUND: Safe, more efficacious treatments are needed to address the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, the current practice in TB therapeutics trials is to use composite binary outcomes, which in the absence of standardization may inflate f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hills, N. K., Lyimo, J., Nahid, P., Savic, R. M., Lienhardt, C., Phillips, P. P. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8329622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34344435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05388-1
_version_ 1783732547943923712
author Hills, N. K.
Lyimo, J.
Nahid, P.
Savic, R. M.
Lienhardt, C.
Phillips, P. P. J.
author_facet Hills, N. K.
Lyimo, J.
Nahid, P.
Savic, R. M.
Lienhardt, C.
Phillips, P. P. J.
author_sort Hills, N. K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Safe, more efficacious treatments are needed to address the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, the current practice in TB therapeutics trials is to use composite binary outcomes, which in the absence of standardization may inflate false positive and negative errors in evaluating regimens. The lack of standardization of outcomes is a barrier to the identification of highly efficacious regimens and the introduction of innovative methodologies METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of trials designed to advance new pulmonary TB drugs or regimens for regulatory approval and inform practice guidelines. Trials were primarily identified from the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). Only trials that collected post-treatment follow-up data and enrolled at least 100 patients were included. Protocols and Statistical Analysis Plans (SAP) for eligible trials from 1995 to the present were obtained from trial investigators. Details of outcome data, both explicit and implied, were abstracted and organized into three broad categories: favorable, unfavorable, and not assessable. Within these categories, individual trial definitions were recorded and collated, and areas of broad consensus and disagreement were identified and described. RESULTS: From 2205 trials in any way related to TB, 51 were selected for protocol and SAP review, from which 31 were both eligible and had accessible documentation. Within the three designated categories, we found broad consensus in the definitions of favorable and unfavorable outcomes, although specific details were not always provided, and when explicitly addressed, were heterogeneous. Favorable outcomes were handled the most consistently but were widely variable with respect to specification. In some cases, the same events were defined differently by different protocols, particularly in distinguishing unfavorable from not assessable events. Death was often interpreted as conditional on cause. Patients who did not complete the study because of withdrawal or loss to follow-up presented a particular challenge to consistent interpretation and analytic treatment of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a review of 31 clinical trials, we found that outcome definitions were heterogeneous, highlighting the need to establish clearer specification and a move towards universal standardization of outcomes across pulmonary TB trials. The ICH E9 (R1) addendum provides guidelines for undertaking and achieving this goal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197993. Registration 11 August 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05388-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8329622
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83296222021-08-03 A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials Hills, N. K. Lyimo, J. Nahid, P. Savic, R. M. Lienhardt, C. Phillips, P. P. J. Trials Review BACKGROUND: Safe, more efficacious treatments are needed to address the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, the current practice in TB therapeutics trials is to use composite binary outcomes, which in the absence of standardization may inflate false positive and negative errors in evaluating regimens. The lack of standardization of outcomes is a barrier to the identification of highly efficacious regimens and the introduction of innovative methodologies METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of trials designed to advance new pulmonary TB drugs or regimens for regulatory approval and inform practice guidelines. Trials were primarily identified from the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). Only trials that collected post-treatment follow-up data and enrolled at least 100 patients were included. Protocols and Statistical Analysis Plans (SAP) for eligible trials from 1995 to the present were obtained from trial investigators. Details of outcome data, both explicit and implied, were abstracted and organized into three broad categories: favorable, unfavorable, and not assessable. Within these categories, individual trial definitions were recorded and collated, and areas of broad consensus and disagreement were identified and described. RESULTS: From 2205 trials in any way related to TB, 51 were selected for protocol and SAP review, from which 31 were both eligible and had accessible documentation. Within the three designated categories, we found broad consensus in the definitions of favorable and unfavorable outcomes, although specific details were not always provided, and when explicitly addressed, were heterogeneous. Favorable outcomes were handled the most consistently but were widely variable with respect to specification. In some cases, the same events were defined differently by different protocols, particularly in distinguishing unfavorable from not assessable events. Death was often interpreted as conditional on cause. Patients who did not complete the study because of withdrawal or loss to follow-up presented a particular challenge to consistent interpretation and analytic treatment of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a review of 31 clinical trials, we found that outcome definitions were heterogeneous, highlighting the need to establish clearer specification and a move towards universal standardization of outcomes across pulmonary TB trials. The ICH E9 (R1) addendum provides guidelines for undertaking and achieving this goal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197993. Registration 11 August 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05388-1. BioMed Central 2021-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8329622/ /pubmed/34344435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05388-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Hills, N. K.
Lyimo, J.
Nahid, P.
Savic, R. M.
Lienhardt, C.
Phillips, P. P. J.
A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title_full A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title_fullStr A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title_short A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
title_sort systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8329622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34344435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05388-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hillsnk asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT lyimoj asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT nahidp asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT savicrm asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT lienhardtc asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT phillipsppj asystematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT hillsnk systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT lyimoj systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT nahidp systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT savicrm systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT lienhardtc systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials
AT phillipsppj systematicreviewofendpointdefinitionsinlatephasepulmonarytuberculosistherapeutictrials