ArticleContemporary clinical trials2019
A pragmatic, adaptive clinical trial design for a rare disease: The FOcal Cerebral Arteriopathy Steroid (FOCAS) trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Consensus for the most suitable trial design to assess therapy for rare vascular malformations: a Delphi study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evolution and Future of Stroke Trials.Stroke · 2024Review
- Focal cerebral arteriopathy-inflammatory type in a child - MR diagnosis using vessel wall imaging technique with review of classification and diagnostic evaluation criteria.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Application of Bayesian methods to accelerate rare disease drug development: scopes and hurdles.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Childhood stroke.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPediatric stroke investigators identified as their top research priority a clinical trial of corticosteroids for focal cerebral arteriopathy (FCA). However, FCA is both rare and an acute condition making it infeasible to enroll the large sample sizes needed for standard, confirmatory clinical trials. We present a pragmatic approach to clinical trial design that may inform the approach to other rare disorders.
methodsWe surveyed pediatric stroke experts to determine the level of evidence that would impact their clinical management of FCA. Incorporating survey results, a randomized, group sequential Bayesian adaptive design was proposed based on a quantitative radiologic outcome measure (change from baseline in change in the FCA Severity Score). Using accumulating information, the design determines whether intervention is better than control with high probability.
resultsAmong 21 (100%) respondents, the probability of corticosteroid efficacy that would lead the experts to treat was 30% (median). The probability of efficacy that would make them unwilling to randomize (because they would feel all children should receive corticosteroids) was 70%. Simulation studies with the proposed design showed that a total of 42 subjects controls the type I error rate at the desired level 0.20 and yields a smaller average sample size and trial duration compared to a conventional design.
conclusionsDesigns in rare diseases require special considerations; this is especially true for this childhood disease, which is both uncommon and acute. This design has incorporated expert consensus to establish the criteria for success, formal monitoring rules for safety, and early stopping rules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.