Mirret M El-Hagrassy1, Dante G G Duarte1, Aurore Thibaut1,2, Mariana F G Lucena1, Felipe Fregni1. 1. Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States. 2. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Research, University and University Hospital of Liege, Liege, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical trials are essential to advance health care and develop new therapies. In this review we discuss the underlying principles of clinical trial design with an emphasis on assessing design risks that lead to trial failure as well as negative trials. While of general interest, this is perhaps particularly timely for the neuromodulation community, given the paucity of well-designed trials in the field. We give some examples from the phantom limb pain (PLP) literature. RECENT FINDINGS: It is critical to gather as much preliminary data as possible and to know how to interpret it in order to choose an appropriate trial design. Therefore, the investigator needs to effectively assess the likely trial design risk/benefit ratio with a view to maximizing the chance of a meaningful outcome, whether this outcome rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. This analysis is especially important in a complex and heterogeneous disorder such as PLP, which has had many negative trials. SUMMARY: We discuss the factors pertaining to a strong trial design benefit/risk assessment, how late trial phases require greater support from preliminary data, how to design trials to minimize risks, maximize benefits, and optimize internal validity as well as the chances of a positive outcome. We highlight the need for investigators to incorporate best practice in trial design to increase the chances of success, to always anticipate unexpected challenges during the trial.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical trials are essential to advance health care and develop new therapies. In this review we discuss the underlying principles of clinical trial design with an emphasis on assessing design risks that lead to trial failure as well as negative trials. While of general interest, this is perhaps particularly timely for the neuromodulation community, given the paucity of well-designed trials in the field. We give some examples from the phantom limb pain (PLP) literature. RECENT FINDINGS: It is critical to gather as much preliminary data as possible and to know how to interpret it in order to choose an appropriate trial design. Therefore, the investigator needs to effectively assess the likely trial design risk/benefit ratio with a view to maximizing the chance of a meaningful outcome, whether this outcome rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. This analysis is especially important in a complex and heterogeneous disorder such as PLP, which has had many negative trials. SUMMARY: We discuss the factors pertaining to a strong trial design benefit/risk assessment, how late trial phases require greater support from preliminary data, how to design trials to minimize risks, maximize benefits, and optimize internal validity as well as the chances of a positive outcome. We highlight the need for investigators to incorporate best practice in trial design to increase the chances of success, to always anticipate unexpected challenges during the trial.
Authors: J D Steeves; D Lammertse; A Curt; J W Fawcett; M H Tuszynski; J F Ditunno; P H Ellaway; M G Fehlings; J D Guest; N Kleitman; P F Bartlett; A R Blight; V Dietz; B H Dobkin; R Grossman; D Short; M Nakamura; W P Coleman; M Gaviria; A Privat Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Rodrigo C L Edelmuth; Michael A Nitsche; Linamara Battistella; Felipe Fregni Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Marian Mocanu; Julianna F Lampropulos; Tony Tse; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Matthew R Mulvey; Helen E Radford; Helen J Fawkner; Lynn Hirst; Vera Neumann; Mark I Johnson Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Shahrul Mt-Isa; Christine E Hallgreen; Nan Wang; Torbjörn Callréus; Georgy Genov; Ian Hirsch; Stephen F Hobbiger; Kimberley S Hockley; Davide Luciani; Lawrence D Phillips; George Quartey; Sinan B Sarac; Isabelle Stoeckert; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Alain Micaleff; Deborah Ashby Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Ruijun Chen; Nihar R Desai; Joseph S Ross; Weiwei Zhang; Katherine H Chau; Brian Wayda; Karthik Murugiah; Daniel Y Lu; Amit Mittal; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: Natalia Kunst; Natasha K Stout; Grace O'Brien; Kurt D Christensen; Pamela M McMahon; Ann Chen Wu; Lisa R Diller; Jennifer M Yeh Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 11.816