drug lit - RCT :) Flashcards
Which one of the following best classifies a clinical trial?
A
Primary literature
B
Secondary literature
C
Tertiary literature
D
Quartile literature
A
Primary literature - correct :)
A RCT is the highest level of medical evidence.
A
True
B
False
False - because they fall at number 2 and meta-analysis is number 1
Background
- GOLD standard - study design to measure and quantify differences in effect of an intervention versus a control
- Required for all new drug entities prior to FDA approval (most are RCTs)
- Basis for clinical practice
– Compiled into treatment and clinical guidelines
– Results change clinical practice - Pharmacists routinely use randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to:
– answer clinical questions
– Stay up-to-date with pharmacy knowledge - Pharmacists must be able to:
- Find appropriate literature
- Evaluate literature
- Explain findings - RCT are primary literature
- Hierarchy of Medical Evidence
Hierarchy of Medical Evidence
- reviews, meta-analysis
- randomized control trial
- non-randomized controlled trials
- cohort study
- case-control study
- case report/case series
- background info., expert opinion
RCT in a snapshot
sample population
randomization
interventional group - outcome
comparator group - outcome
compare differences in outcome
statistical significance - is the difference due to chance
clinical significance - is the difference meaningful
Clinical significant can differ in opinion - is that difference meaningful
RCT components
Abstract
- Brief overview of the research, synopsis, 200-300 words
- Generally includes: introduction (justify why the clinical trial is being done, hypothesis to study), methods, results, conclusion
Introduction
- Disease/drug background information
- What is already known
- Establishes rationale for current study
- Includes clinical trial objective/hypothesis
Methods - we will spend most of our time here
- Study design
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Intervention/control groups
- Randomization
Results
- Number of participants
- Participant characteristics
- Dropouts - if any participants dropped out
- Endpoints quantified
- Safety assessment
Discussion
- Author’s interpretation of results
- Comparison to other studies
- Strengths/limitations - what are the flaws and strengths of the study
Conclusion
- Final conclusion of the study
- No new information introduced
Acknowledgments
- Other contributors
- Funding sources
- Peer-review dates/manuscripts acceptance date
References
- Citations of information included from other sources
RCT Evaluation
Evaluate the study
- strengths vs. __limitations
- As limitations goes up, the strengths go down
Evaluate the therapy
- _benefits vs. _harms
- More harms, benefits goes down
Evaluating the ABSTRACT
- Give it a “quick” read, do not base entire decisions,
- is the rest of the article worth reading?
What is the intervention?
What is the comparator ?
What is the OUTCOME?
What is the population?
Evaluating the BACKGROUND
- Background/Introduction section
- Study rationale
- Previous data
- Trial objectives
Consider the journal the article is published in
- Peer-reviewed (Strength) - meaning the work is sent to experts and provide comments to the author and sends the comments to the author who makes changes and revises work
- Reviewed, prior to publication, by experts in the field
Reduces publication of:
Inappropriate methods/design
Poorly written
Does not meet needs of journal audience
Reputable (Strength)
- Affiliated with a professional organization
- Impact factor - the higher, the more times the article is cited
- # of times the journal was _cited in 2 years = impact factor / # of articles _PUBLISHED in 2 years
Example major medical journals
- New England Journal of Medicine (impact factor: 176.1)
- The Lancet (impact factor: 202.7)
- Journal of the American Medical Association (impact factor: 157.3)
Evaluating the METHODS
Internal vs. external validity
Internal Validity - inside the study
- The degree to which a study accurately measures the relationship between the variables it intends to investigate, while minimizing the influence of confounding variables
- Think inside the study: How well the study was conducted?
Internal validity is about ensuring that the way a trial is set up and carried out does not lead to errors, so we are confident that the results accurately reflect the relationships between the independent and dependent variables
- Impacted by:
Study design
External Validity - outside the study
- The extent to which the findings of a study can be applied to real-world situations or populations beyond the specific conditions of the research
- Think outside of the results: External validity involves considering how well the findings of a study can be relevant and useful in situations and with people different from those in the specific research, ensuring the broader relevance of the study’s conclusions
- Impacted by:
Enrollment procedures
Treatment protocol
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Duration and follow-up
Treatment adherence
Concomitant treatments
Baseline characteristics
Study design
Variables (see Dr. Carey’s material for more information on variables)
- Any data point or characteristic that can be measured or counted
- Independent variables
changed or manipulated by the researcher
Examples: inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention, control group - Dependent variables
Affected by the independent variable
Examples: trial outcomes
Confounding variables
extraneous or third variable variable that is related to a study’s independent and dependent variables
Unmeasured third variable the effects both the cause and the affect
Make sure to control for it
Prospective vs. retrospective
Prospective: study participants are followed over time and data is collected at follow-up visits
RCT is prospective (weakness)
Retrospective: data from participants is collected from the past
Often used in observational studies (strength)
Randomization
goal: achieve balance between the groups, control for
Separates RCT from other study designs (strength)
Participants have equal chance of being placed in either group
The goal of randomization is to achieve balance between the groups in a clinical trial
Allow investigators to control for confounding
A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that is related to a study’s independent and dependent variables
Types of Randomization
simple
blocked
stratfied
simple randomization
Each individual in a study has an equal and independent chance of being assigned to each group
Methods:
Flipping a coin
1:1 ratio
Random number tables
advantages
- Simple
- Unbiased allocation
disadvantages
- Predictable
- does not account for confounders
- confounders may not distribute evenly
blocked randomization
Participants are grouped into blocks, and within each block, randomly assigned to the treatment or control group
Block size can vary
Randomization sequence can be changed with each block
Pick a set of letters and as the participants come in, they are assigned according to the order of the set
Ex: ABAABA
First person is A, Second person is B etc
advantages:
Treatment groups will be equal
Tend to have uniform distribution of __confounders
disadvantages
- Complex
- Vulnerable to predictability if block sequence not changed
- Harder to know
- Eventually predictable
stratified randomization
Participants from a population are grouped into strata based on a clinical feature that can influence or confound the outcome
Participants are then randomized from each stratum into the intervention or control group
advantages
- Confounding variables are evenly distributed between the groups
disadvantages
Complex
Potential for reduced generalizability
Some strata may be small
Which one of the following is the weakest form of randomization?
A
Simple
B
Blocked
C
Stratified
D
They are all equally weak
A
Simple
Which forms of randomization evenly distribute Confounding variables? (Select ALL that Apply)
A
Simple
B
Blocked
C
Stratified
B
Blocked
C
Stratified
Multi-centered study design
Higher external validity because we will get more diverse patients
More than one site recruiting patents
Concern for internal validity
- What variables are left up to investigator discretion? - can lead to how patients are treated or followed
- Will it be consistent across different sites?
Single-centered study design
Higher internal validity
Concern for external validity
Will the population be diverse enough to extrapolate to a general population?
Only one site
Parallel RCTs
Participants stay in originally assigned treatment group for the duration of the study
Crossover RCTs
Participants start with one treatment then switch to the opposite treatment with a washout period in between
Allows participants to serve as their _own control, and so can use a smaller sample size
Blinding (also known as masking)
Is used to prevent bias in clinical trials
If participants are aware of treatment allocation in can bias:
- Expectations
- Adherence
- Treatment-seeking behavior
- Assessment of effectiveness
If investigators are aware of treatment allocation in can bias:
- Different treatment, attention or attitudes toward subjects
- Assessment of outcomes
If outcome assessors are aware of treatment allocation it can bias:
- Assessment of outcomes
Once bias is introduced into a study from one of these potential sources, there is no analytical technique that can reliably correct for this _limitation - we reduce the bias from ever being introduced
Levels of blinding - also known as masking used to prevent bias:
unblinded blinded
single blinded
double blinded
triple blinded
Unblinded (also known as open-label)
_participanets and researchers - so all parties__ aware of treatment allocation
advantages:
Extension phase of RCT
Early stage trials
Rare diseases
Ethical reasons
disadvantage:
_everyone is aware and may raise bias
Single-Blind
_participants unaware of treatment allocation but researchers are aware
advantages
Bias from participants reduced
disadvantages
Potential for unblinding - because the side effects may be evident
Challenges for recruitment
Double-Blind
_participants__ and _researchers unaware of treatment allocation
advanatge
Bias from participants and investigators reduced (more rigorous)
Improves internal validity
disadvanatge
Potential for unblinding - because the side effects may be evident
Resource intensive
Triple-Blind
___participants____ and researchers and data-assessors (outcome assessors) unaware of treatment allocation
advantage
Bias from participants and investigators and assessors reduced (most rigorous)
Improves internal validity
disadvantage
Potential for unblinding
Resource intensive