In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to p ≤ .005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.

No abstract

for the ASTIN Study InvestigatorsBackground and Purpose-UK-279,276 (neutrophil inhibitory factor) reduced infarct volume in a rat middle cerebral artery occlusion reperfusion model. ASTIN (Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils) was an adaptive phase 2 dose-response-finding, proof-of-concept study to establish whether UK-279,276 improves recovery in acute ischemic stroke. The prime objective was to determine the dose that gave a clinically relevant effect in patients. Methods-A Bayesian sequential design with real-time efficacy data capture and continuous reassessment of the dose response allowed double-blind, randomized, adaptive allocation to 1 of 15 doses (dose range, 10 to 120 mg) or placebo and early termination for efficacy or futility. The primary end point was change from baseline to day 90 on the Scandinavian Stroke Scale (⌬SSS), adjusted for baseline SSS, aiming for a 3-point additional mean recovery above placebo. Results-Nine hundred sixty-six acute stroke patients (887 ischemic, 204 cotreated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator; mean baseline SSS score, 28; range, 10 to 40) were treated within 6 hours of symptom onset. Mean ⌬SSS was approximately ϩ17 points of improvement on SSS for the overall evaluable population. There was no treatment effect for UK-279,276 (posterior probability of futility, 0.89). The trial was stopped early for futility. Post hoc analysis indicated a mean 1.6-point additional improvement on ⌬SSS in the tissue plasminogen activator-treated subset (credible intervalϭ0.5, 2.6). UK-279,276 was generally well tolerated, with no increased incidence of infections. Conclusions-UK-279,276 did not improve recovery in acute ischemic stroke patients but was devoid of serious side effects. The adaptive design facilitated early termination for futility.

SUMMARY Four typical applications of Bayesian methods in pharmaceutical research are outlined. The implications of the use of such methods are discussed, and comparisons with traditional methodologies are given.

The goal of clinical trial research is to deliver safe and efficacious new treatments to patients in need in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is precedent in using historical control data to reduce the number of concurrent control subjects required in developing medicines for rare diseases and other areas of unmet need. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review for a regulatory and industry audience of the current state of relevant statistical methods, and of the uptake of these approaches and the opportunities for broader use of historical data in confirmatory clinical trials. General principles to consider when incorporating historical control data in a new trial are presented. Bayesian and frequentist approaches are outlined including how the operating characteristics for such a trial can be obtained. Finally, examples of approved new treatments that incorporated historical controls in their confirmatory trials are presented.

Understanding the dose-response is critical for successful drug development. We describe an adaptive design to efficiently learn about the dose-response and the ED95. A dynamic termination rule allows for early discontinuation either for efficacy or futility. The design was deployed in ASTIN, a phase II proof-of-concept trial of the neuroprotectant, neutrophil inhibitory factor (NIF), in acute stroke. We discuss the learning from this trial.

IntroductionThe continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM’s uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce.MethodsTo help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM.ResultsAn initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design.ConclusionsThe framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0638-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryBackgroundLow emission zones (LEZ) are an increasingly common, but unevaluated, intervention aimed at improving urban air quality and public health. We investigated the impact of London's LEZ on air quality and children's respiratory health.MethodsWe did a sequential annual cross-sectional study of 2164 children aged 8–9 years attending primary schools between 2009–10 and 2013–14 in central London, UK, following the introduction of London's LEZ in February, 2008. We examined the association between modelled pollutant exposures of nitrogen oxides (including nitrogen dioxide [NO2]) and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5) and less than 10 μm (PM10) and lung function: postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1, primary outcome), forced vital capacity (FVC), and respiratory or allergic symptoms. We assigned annual exposures by each child's home and school address, as well as spatially resolved estimates for the 3 h (0600–0900 h), 24 h, and 7 days before each child's assessment, to isolate long-term from short-term effects.FindingsThe percentage of children living at addresses exceeding the EU limit value for annual NO2 (40 μg/m3) fell from 99% (444/450) in 2009 to 34% (150/441) in 2013. Over this period, we identified a reduction in NO2 at both roadside (median −1·35 μg/m3 per year; 95% CI −2·09 to −0·61; p=0·0004) and background locations (−0·97; −1·56 to −0·38; p=0·0013), but not for PM10. The effect on PM2·5 was equivocal. We found no association between postbronchodilator FEV1 and annual residential pollutant attributions. By contrast, FVC was inversely correlated with annual NO2 (−0·0023 L/μg per m3; −0·0044 to −0·0002; p=0·033) and PM10 (−0·0090 L/μg per m3; −0·0175 to −0·0005; p=0·038).InterpretationWithin London's LEZ, a smaller lung volume in children was associated with higher annual air pollutant exposures. We found no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs over this period, despite small improvements in air quality in highly polluted urban areas during the implementation of London's LEZ. Interventions that deliver larger reductions in emissions might yield improvements in children's health.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust and King's College London, NHS Hackney, Lee Him donation, and Felicity Wilde Charitable Trust.