» Articles » PMID: 38215876

Development and Evaluation of Objective Trial Performance Metrics for Multisite Clinical Studies: Experience from the AlcHep Network

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2024 Jan 12
PMID 38215876
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Recruitment and retention are critical in clinical studies but there are limited objective metrics of trial performance. We tested if development of trial performance metrics will allow for objective evaluation of study quality. Performance metrics were developed using data from the observational cohort (OBS) and randomized clinical trial (RCT) arms of the prospective Alcoholic Hepatitis Network.

Methods: Yield-rate (%YR; eligible/screened), recruitment index (RI; mean recruitment time/patient), completion index (CI; average number of days to complete the follow-up/patient), and protocol adherence index (AI; average number of deviations/subject recruited) were determined.

Results: 2250 patients (1168 for OBS; 1082 for RCT) were screened across 8 sites. Recruitment in the RCT (57% target) was similar to that in the OBS (59% target). Of those screened, 743 (63.6%) subjects in the OBS and 147 (13.6%) subjects in the RCT were enrolled in the study. In OBS study, 253 (34.1%) subjects, and in the RCT, 68 (46.3%) subjects, completed the study or reached a censoring event. Across all sites (range), YR for OBS was 63.6% (41.3-98.3%) and for RCT was 13.6% (5.5-92.6%); RI for OBS was 1.66 (8.79-19.85) and for RCT was 4.05 (19.76-36.43); CI for OBS was 4.87 (22.6-118.3) and for RCT was 8.75 (27.27-161.5); and AR for OBS was 0.56 (0.08-1.04) and for RCT was 1.55 (0.39-3.21. Factors related to participants, research design, study team, and research sponsors contributed to lower performance metrics.

Conclusions: Objective measures of clinical trial performance allow for strategies to enhance study quality and development of site-specific improvement plans.

Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT4072822 NCT03850899.

Citing Articles

Designing clinical trials to address alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease: an expert panel Consensus Statement.

Lee B, Witkiewitz K, Mellinger J, Anania F, Bataller R, Cotter T Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024; 21(9):626-645.

PMID: 38849555 PMC: 11829730. DOI: 10.1038/s41575-024-00936-x.


Insights into ALD and AUD diagnosis and prognosis: Exploring AI and multimodal data streams.

Narayanan P, Wu T, Shah V, Curtis B Hepatology. 2024; 80(6):1480-1494.

PMID: 38743008 PMC: 11881074. DOI: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000929.

References
1.
von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2008; 82(3):251-9. DOI: 10.1590/s1135-57272008000300002. View

2.
Zarkin G, Bray J, Aldridge A, Mitra D, Mills M, Couper D . Cost and cost-effectiveness of the COMBINE study in alcohol-dependent patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008; 65(10):1214-21. PMC: 3095105. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.10.1214. View

3.
Glanville J, Duffy S, McCool R, Varley D . Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014; 102(3):177-83. PMC: 4076126. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007. View

4.
Natale P, Saglimbene V, Ruospo M, Gonzalez A, Strippoli G, Scholes-Robertson N . Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 134:35-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.014. View

5.
Martin F, Susan S . Improving the external validity of clinical trials: the case of multiple chronic conditions. J Comorb. 2017; 3(Spec Issue):30-35. PMC: 5636029. DOI: 10.15256/joc.2013.3.27. View