| Literature DB >> 31414121 |
Sachiko Miyahara1, Ritesh Ramchandani1, Soyeon Kim2, Scott R Evans3, Amita Gupta4, Susan Swindells5, Richard E Chaisson4, Grace Montepiedra1.
Abstract
Although it is common to analyze efficacy and safety separately in clinical trials, this could yield a misleading study conclusion if an increase in efficacy is accompanied by a decrease in safety. A risk-benefit analysis is a systematic approach to examine safety and efficacy jointly. Both the "rank-based" and "partial-credit" methods described in this paper allow researchers to create a single, composite outcome incorporating efficacy, safety, and other factors. The first approach compares the distribution of rankings between arms. In the second approach, a score can be assigned to each outcome category, considering its severity and comparing the mean or median scores of arms. The methods were applied to the A5279/Brief Rifapentine-Isoniazid Efficacy for TB Prevention study, and design considerations for future clinical trials are discussed, including the challenge of arriving at a consensus on rankings/scorings. If well designed, a risk-benefit analysis may allow for a superiority comparison and, therefore, avoid setting a noninferiority margin. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01404312 (A5279).Entities:
Keywords: TB; clinical trials; composite outcome ranking; risk-benefit analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31414121 PMCID: PMC7319261 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Infect Dis ISSN: 1058-4838 Impact factor: 9.079