Search

Background: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. Results: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. Conclusion: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Interrupted time series (ITS) design is a commonly used method for evaluating large-scale interventions in clinical practice or public health. However, improperly using this method can lead to biased results. Objective: To investigate design and statistical analysis characteristics of drug utilization studies using ITS design, and give recommendations for improvements. Methods: A literature search was conducted based on PubMed from January 2021 to December 2021. We included original articles that used ITS design to investigate drug utilization without restriction on study population or outcome types. A structured, pilot-tested questionnaire was developed to extract information regarding study characteristics and details about design and statistical analysis. Results: We included 153 eligible studies. Among those, 28.1% (43/153) clearly explained the rationale for using the ITS design and 13.7% (21/153) clarified the rationale of using the specified ITS model structure. One hundred and forty-nine studies used aggregated data to do ITS analysis, and 20.8% (31/149) clarified the rationale for the number of time points. The consideration of autocorrelation, non-stationary and seasonality was often lacking among those studies, and only 14 studies mentioned all of three methodological issues. Missing data was mentioned in 31 studies. Only 39.22% (60/153) reported the regression models, while 15 studies gave the incorrect interpretation of level change due to time parameterization. Time-varying participant characteristics were considered in 24 studies. In 97 studies containing hierarchical data, 23 studies clarified the heterogeneity among clusters and used statistical methods to address this issue. Conclusion: The quality of design and statistical analyses in ITS studies for drug utilization remains unsatisfactory. Three emerging methodological issues warranted particular attention, including incorrect interpretation of level change due to time parameterization, time-varying participant characteristics and hierarchical data analysis. We offered specific recommendations about the design, analysis and reporting of the ITS study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]