TY - JOUR
T1 - Applying a Risk-benefit Analysis to Outcomes in Tuberculosis Clinical Trials
AU - Miyahara, Sachiko
AU - Ramchandani, Ritesh
AU - Kim, Soyeon
AU - Evans, Scott R.
AU - Gupta, Amita
AU - Swindells, Susan
AU - Chaisson, Richard E.
AU - Montepiedra, Grace
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial support. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (award numbers UM1 AI068634, UM1 AI068636, and UM1 AI106701 to the AIDS Clinical Trials Group apply to authors S. M., R. R., S. S., and R. E. C.; award number UM1 AI068616 to the International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network applies to authors A. G., S. K., and G. M.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: [email protected].
PY - 2020/2/3
Y1 - 2020/2/3
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
KW - TB
KW - clinical trials
KW - composite outcome ranking
KW - risk-benefit analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078866603&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85078866603&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/cid/ciz784
DO - 10.1093/cid/ciz784
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31414121
AN - SCOPUS:85078866603
SN - 1058-4838
VL - 70
SP - 698
EP - 703
JO - Clinical Infectious Diseases
JF - Clinical Infectious Diseases
IS - 4
ER -