A Standardized Approach for Collection of Objective Data to Support Outcome Determination for Late-Phase Tuberculosis Clinical Trials.

Rationale: We developed a standardized method, possible poor treatment response (PPTR), to help ascertain efficacy endpoints in Study S31/A5349 (NCT02410772), an open-label trial comparing two 4-month rifapentine-based regimens with a standard 6-month regimen for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Objectives: We describe the use of the PPTR process and evaluate whether the goals of minimizing bias in efficacy endpoint assessment and attainment of relevant data to determine outcomes for all participants were achieved. Methods: A PPTR event was defined as the occurrence of one or more prespecified triggers. Each PPTR required initiation of a standardized evaluation process that included obtaining multiple sputum samples for microbiology. Measurements and Main Results: Among 2,343 participants with culture-confirmed drug-susceptible TB, 454 individuals (19.4%) had a total of 534 individual PPTR events, of which 76.6% were microbiological (positive smear or culture at or after 17 wk). At least one PPTR event was experienced by 92.4% (133 of 144) of participants with TB-related unfavorable outcome and between 13.8% and 14.7% of participants with favorable and not-assessable outcomes. A total of 75% of participants with TB-related unfavorable outcomes had microbiological confirmation of failure to achieve a disease-free cure. Conclusions: Standardized methodologies, such as our PPTR approach, could facilitate unbiased efficacy outcome determinations, improve discrimination between outcomes that are related and unrelated to regimen efficacy, and enhance the ability to conduct pooled analyses of contemporary trials.

Association Between Staff Experience and Effective Tuberculosis Contact Tracing in North Carolina, 2008-2009.

BACKGROUND: Effective investigation of tuberculosis (TB) contacts is essential for continued progress toward TB elimination. As the incidence of TB declines, staff experience will also decline. Little is known about the association between the experience level of public health TB staff and the quality of contact investigations. METHODS: Contact investigations involving fewer than 30 contacts during the period 2008-2009 were included in this analysis. Multivariable models were used to examine associations between staff TB experience (assessed by a standardized survey) and measures of contact investigation quality: time from case identification to contact identification and number of contacts identified per case investigated. RESULTS: A total of 501 cases and 3,230 contacts met the inclusion criteria. Data were stratified by the number of cases in the county and whether the case was smear-positive or smear-negative. For contacts of smear-positive cases, greater staff experience was associated with more rapid contact identification both in counties with high case counts (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.79-3.31) and in counties with low case counts (HR = 1.142; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37). However, for smear-negative cases, staff in counties with low case counts identified contacts more slowly as years of experience increased (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.62-1.07). For contacts of smear-negative cases, more contacts (relative risk [RR] = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.35) were identified per case in high case-count counties (more than 20 cases during 2008-2009). Conversely, in low case-count counties, fewer contacts were identified per case (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08); however, this finding was not significant. DISCUSSION: Speed of identification and number of contacts are imperfect surrogates for the most important outcome of contact investigations-that is, the rapid identification and treatment of infected contacts. CONCLUSION: More TB experience was associated with more rapid and thorough TB contact investigations. Retaining experienced staff and mentoring staff new to case management should be high priorities for TB control programs.

Central monitoring in a randomized, open-label, controlled phase 3 clinical trial for a treatment-shortening regimen for pulmonary tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing use of online study management systems and rapid availability of data, timely data review and quality assessments are necessary to ensure proper clinical trial implementation. In this report we describe central monitoring used to ensure protocol compliance and accurate data reporting, implemented during a large phase 3 clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Tuberculosis Trials Consortium (TBTC) Study 31/AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) study A5349 (S31) is an international, multi-site, randomized, open-label, controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 clinical trial comparing two 4-month regimens to a standard 6 month regimen for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) among adolescents and adults with a sample size of 2500 participants. RESULTS: Central monitoring utilized primary study data in a five-tiered approach, including (1) real-time data checks & topic-specific intervention reports, (2) missing forms reports, (3) quality assurance metrics, (4) critical data reports and (5) protocol deviation identification, aimed to detect and resolve quality challenges. Over the course of the study, 240 data checks and reports were programed across the five tiers used. DISCUSSION: This use of primary study data to identify issues rapidly allowed the study sponsor to focus quality assurance and data cleaning activities on prioritized data, related to protocol compliance and accurate reporting of study results. Our approach enabled us to become more efficient and effective as we informed sites about deviations, resolved missing or inconsistent data, provided targeted guidance, and gained a deeper understanding of challenges experienced at clinical trial sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02410772) on April 8, 2015.