Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908739›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of infectious diseases2016

Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Ebola Virus Disease Medical Countermeasures: PREVAIL II, the Ebola MCM Study.

Lori E Dodd, Michael A Proschan, Jacqueline Neuhaus, Joseph S Koopmeiners, James Neaton, John D Beigel, Kevin Barrett, Henry Clifford Lane, Richard T Davey

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Machine learning for clinical trials in the era of COVID-19.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Collaboration of the NIH and PHS Commissioned Corps in the International Ebola Clinical Research Response.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lori E DoddNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.
Michael A ProschanNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.
Jacqueline NeuhausDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Joseph S KoopmeinersDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
James NeatonDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
John D BeigelLeidos Biomedical Research, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Maryland.
Kevin BarrettNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.
Henry Clifford LaneNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.
Richard T DaveyNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

Funding

Influenza and Emerging Infectious DiseasesZIAAI000984 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI DAVEY, RICHARD · 2009 to 2025
$44.1M
Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention of Emerging Infectious DiseasesZIAAI000936 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI LANE, CLIFFORD · 2009 to 2025
$6.4M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnique challenges posed by emerging infectious diseases often expose inadequacies in the conventional phased investigational therapeutic development paradigm. The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa presents a critical case-study highlighting barriers to faster development. During the outbreak, clinical trials were implemented with unprecedented speed. Yet, in most cases, this fast-tracked approach proved too slow for the rapidly evolving epidemic. Controversy abounded as to the most appropriate study designs to yield safety and efficacy data, potentially causing delays in pivotal studies. Preparation for research during future outbreaks may require acceptance of a paradigm that circumvents, accelerates, or reorders traditional phases, without losing sight of the traditional benchmarks by which drug candidates must be assessed for activity, safety and efficacy.

methodsWe present the design of an adaptive, parent protocol, ongoing in West Africa until January 2016. The exigent circumstances of the outbreak and limited prior clinical experience with experimental treatments, led to more direct bridging from preclinical studies to human trials than the conventional paradigm would typically have sanctioned, and required considerable design flexibility.

resultsPreliminary evaluation of the "barely Bayesian" design was provided through computer simulation studies. The understanding and public discussion of the study design will help its future implementation.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAfrica, WesternBayes TheoremComputer SimulationEbolavirusHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansResearch Designadaptive designBayesian designclinical trialsEbola virus diseaseemerging infectious diseases

Identifiers

PMID26908739
PMCPMC4878725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.