Search

Objectives: Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results., Methods: We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate., Results: We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%., Conclusion: We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs., Results: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%)., Conclusion: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD., Methods and Analysis: This international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness., Ethics and Dissemination: The CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)