Sample size re-estimation for clinical trials with longitudinal negative binomial counts including time trends

In some diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, lesion counts obtained from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used as markers of disease progression. This leads to longitudinal, and typically overdispersed, count data outcomes in clinical trials. Models for such data invariably include a number of nuisance parameters, which can be difficult to specify at the planning stage, leading to considerable uncertainty in sample size specification. Consequently, blinded sample size re-estimation procedures are used, allowing for an adjustment of the sample size within an ongoing trial by estimating relevant nuisance parameters at an interim point, without compromising trial integrity. To date, the methods available for re-estimation have required an assumption that the mean count is time-constant within patients. We propose a new modeling approach that maintains the advantages of established procedures but allows for general underlying and treatment-specific time trends in the mean response. A simulation study is conducted to assess the effectiveness of blinded sample size re-estimation methods over fixed designs. Sample sizes attained through blinded sample size re-estimation procedures are shown to maintain the desired study power without inflating the Type I error rate and the procedure is demonstrated on MRI data from a recent study in multiple sclerosis.     

Use of colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis and incidence of febrile neutropenia from 2010 to 2016: a longitudinal assessment

Background: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factor (PP-CSF) when risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) – based on chemotherapy and patient risk factors – is high. Whether and how PP-CSF use may have changed over time (e.g. due to guideline revisions, increasing use of myelosuppressive regimens, controversy regarding inappropriate CSF use), and whether there has been a concomitant change in the incidence of FN, is unknown.

Methods: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories were employed. The study population included patients who had non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, lung or ovaries, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN. For each patient, the first cycle of the first course was characterized in terms of PP-CSF use and FN episodes. Crude incidence proportions for PP-CSF and FN during the first cycle were estimated by calendar quarter (2010–2016); multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate quarter-specific adjusted mean probabilities of FN by PP-CSF use.

Results: The study population totaled 142,730 patients with breast cancer (61%), colorectal cancer (14%), NHL (11%), ovarian cancer (10%) or lung cancer (5%). PP-CSF use increased from 52% in 1Q2010 to 58% in 4Q2016; pegfilgrastim was the most commonly used agent (>96% across quarters). PP-CSF administration on the same day as chemotherapy ranged from 8 to 11% until 1Q2015, and increased to 64% by 4Q2016. Adjusted incidence proportions for FN in the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3–3.0) to 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1–4.3) among those who did not receive PP-CSF, and was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5–2.7) across quarters among those who received PP-CSF.

Conclusions: Although the use of PP-CSF is commonplace in current US clinical practice, underutilization in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN may still be an issue. Use of same-day PP-CSF increased markedly from the end of 2015, although this finding reflects (at least in part) increased uptake of pegfilgrastim delivered via an on-body injector as well as the recent change in clinical practice guidelines. Overall, patients receiving PP-CSF appear to have a lower risk of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy.     

The technological imperative in tuberculosis care and prevention in Vietnam

ABSTRACT

A monocausal bacteriological understanding of infectious disease orients tuberculosis control efforts towards antimicrobial interventions. A bias towards technological solutions can leave multistranded public health and social interventions largely neglected. In the context of globalising biomedical approaches to infectious disease control, this ethnography-inspired review article reflects upon the implementation of rapid diagnostic technology in low- and middle-income countries. Fieldwork observations in Vietnam provided a stimulus for a critical review of the global rollout of tuberculosis diagnostic technology. To address local needs in tuberculosis control, health managers in resource-poor settings are readily cooperating with international donors to deploy novel diagnostic technologies throughout national tuberculosis programme facilities. Increasing investment in new diagnostic technologies is predicated on the supposition that these interventions will ameliorate disease outcomes. However, suboptimal treatment control persists even when accurate diagnostic technologies are available, suggesting that promotion of singular technological solutions can distract from addressing systemic change, without which disease susceptibility, propagation of infection, detection gaps, diagnostic delays, and treatment shortfalls persist.     

How does measurement of platelet P-selectin compare with other methods of measuring platelet function as a means of determining the effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy?

Measurement of P-selectin on activated platelets as a means of measuring platelet function utilizing the technology described here has the advantage of not requiring immediate access to specialist equipment and expertise. Blood samples are activated, fixed, stored, and transported to a central laboratory for flow cytometric analysis. Here we have compared P-selectin with other more traditional approaches to measuring platelet function in blood and/or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) from patients with acute coronary syndromes on treatment for at least 1 month with either aspirin and clopidogrel or aspirin with prasugrel. The comparators were light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow and Multiplate aggregometry (for determining the effects of aspirin) and LTA, VerifyNow and Multiplate together with the BioCytex VASP phosphorylation assay (for the P2Y₁₂ antagonists). The P-selectin Aspirin Test revealed substantial inhibition of platelet function in all but three of 96 patients receiving aspirin with clopidogrel and in none of 51 patients receiving aspirin and prasugrel. The results were very similar to those obtained using LTA. There was only one patient with high residual platelet aggregation and low P-selectin expression. The same patients identified as “non-responders” to aspirin also presented with the highest residual platelet activity as measured using the VerifyNow system, although not quite as well separated from the other values. With the Multiplate test only one of these patients clearly stood out from the others. The results obtained using the P-selectin P2Y₁₂ Test in 102 patients taking aspirin and clopidogrel were similar to the more traditional approaches in that a wide scatter of results was obtained. Generally, high values seen with the P-selectin P2Y₁₂ Test were also high with the LTA, VerifyNow, Multiplate, and BioCytex VASP P2Y₁₂ Tests. Similarly, low residual platelet function using the P2Y₁₂ test was seen irrespective of the testing procedure used. However, there were differences in some patients. Prasugrel was always more effective than clopidogrel in inhibiting platelet function with none of 56 patients (P-selectin and VerifyNow), only 2 of 56 patients (Multiplate) and only 3 of 56 patients (Biocytex VASP) demonstrating high on-treatment residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) defined using previously published cut-off values. The exception was LTA where there were 11 of 56 patients with HRPR. It remains to be seen which experimental approach provides the most useful information regarding outcomes after adjusting therapies in treated patients.