Suppr超能文献

“开放入组”还是“严格筛选人群”入组?随机对照MeMeMe试验的经验

"Open mesh" or "strictly selected population" recruitment? The experience of the randomized controlled MeMeMe trial.

作者信息

Cortellini Mauro, Berrino Franco, Pasanisi Patrizia

机构信息

Department of Preventive & Predictive Medicine, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 Jul 6;11:1127-1132. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S135412. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Among randomized controlled trials (RCTs), trials for primary prevention require large samples and long follow-up to obtain a high-quality outcome; therefore the recruitment process and the drop-out rates largely dictate the adequacy of the results. We are conducting a Phase III trial on persons with metabolic syndrome to test the hypothesis that comprehensive lifestyle changes and/or metformin treatment prevents age-related chronic diseases (the MeMeMe trial, EudraCT number: 2012-005427-32, also registered on ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02960711]). Here, we briefly analyze and discuss the reasons which may lead to participants dropping out from trials. In our experience, participants may back out of a trial for different reasons. Drug-induced side effects are certainly the most compelling reason. But what are the other reasons, relating to the participants' perception of the progress of the trial which led them to withdraw after randomization? What about the time-dependent drop-out rate in primary prevention trials? The primary outcome of this analysis is the point of drop-out from trial, defined as the time from the randomization date to the withdrawal date. Survival functions were non-parametrically estimated using the product-limit estimator. The curves were statistically compared using the log-rank test (=0.64, not significant). Researchers involved in primary prevention RCTs seem to have to deal with the paradox of the proverbial "short blanket syndrome". Recruiting only highly motivated candidates might be useful for the smooth progress of the trial but it may lead to a very low enrollment rate. On the other hand, what about enrolling all the eligible subjects without considering their motivation? This might boost the enrollment rate, but it can lead to biased results on account of large proportions of drop-outs. Our experience suggests that participants do not change their mind depending on the allocation group (intervention or control). There is no single answer to sort out the short blanket syndrome.

摘要

在随机对照试验(RCT)中,一级预防试验需要大样本和长时间随访才能获得高质量结果;因此,招募过程和失访率在很大程度上决定了结果的充分性。我们正在对代谢综合征患者进行一项III期试验,以检验综合生活方式改变和/或二甲双胍治疗可预防与年龄相关的慢性疾病这一假设(MeMeMe试验,欧洲临床试验数据库编号:2012 - 005427 - 32,也已在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册 [NCT02960711])。在此,我们简要分析并讨论可能导致参与者退出试验的原因。根据我们的经验,参与者退出试验可能有不同原因。药物引起的副作用肯定是最具说服力的原因。但与参与者对试验进展的认知相关、导致他们在随机分组后退出的其他原因是什么呢?一级预防试验中随时间变化的失访率情况又如何呢?该分析的主要结果是退出试验的时间点,定义为从随机分组日期到退出日期的时间。生存函数使用乘积限估计法进行非参数估计。使用对数秩检验对曲线进行统计学比较(P = 0.64,无显著性差异)。参与一级预防RCT的研究人员似乎不得不应对众所周知的“短毛毯综合征”这一悖论。仅招募积极性高的候选人可能对试验的顺利进行有用,但可能导致入组率非常低。另一方面,不考虑动机而招募所有符合条件的受试者又如何呢?这可能会提高入组率,但由于大量失访可能导致结果有偏差。我们的经验表明,参与者不会根据分配组(干预组或对照组)改变主意。解决短毛毯综合征没有单一答案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8ccd/5505681/070095967125/ppa-11-1127Fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验