English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The first clinical trial to evaluate an effective drug for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) conducted in 1946 by the Medical Research Council (MRC) under the direction of Bradford Hill is also widely regarded as the first properly conducted randomised clinical trial in any disease area. This new treatment was shown to significantly reduce the short term risk of death in patients with TB. As treatment improved, death became an increasingly uncommon outcome and change in clinical symptoms, radiographic appearance and bacteriological response were the commonly reported endpoints. Eventually, bacteriological failure and relapse became the primary endpoints of interest. Patients lost to follow-up were excluded from the primary analysis, as were patients not completing treatment or changing treatment for adverse events in what would today be regarded as a per protocol (PP) analysis. In recent years the first phase III trials for new TB regimens for several decades have been initiated. Due to the high efficacy of the standard regimen in trial settings, these trials are designed as non-inferiority trials. Guidelines recommend both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a PP analysis for non-inferiority trials. Classifying all patients with missing endpoints as unfavourable, as is recommended by the US FDA for other infectious diseases, is not appropriate in the context where losses to follow-up in the 12-18 months after treatment (when signs and symptoms have usually ceased) could easily exceed the true bacteriological unfavourable outcome (approximately 5%). Objective In this paper, we will discuss the complexities in (1) defining the composition of the clinical endpoint used in a TB treatment trial with a non-inferiority design and (2) performing the appropriate analyses. The relative roles of bacteriology and clinical signs and symptoms as well as the classification of patients with missing endpoints are important issues which can radically affect the overall trial results.

The evolution of and challenges in defining the clinical endpoint in tuberculosis treatment trials with non-inferiority designs