Application and impact of run-in studies
A run-in phase is often employed prior to randomization in a clinical trial to exclude non-adherent patients, placebo responders, active drug non-responders, or patients who do not tolerate the active drug. This may impact the generalizability of trial results.
To determine if clinical outcomes differed between randomized controlled trials with run-in phases compared with randomized controlled trials of the same medication without run-in phases.
From 2006 to 2014, the Food and Drug Administration approved 258 new medications. Sitaglitpin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and alogliptin were among the only drugs with a common mechanism of action that each had multiple clinical trials, some of which had run-in phases and some of which did not. We identified all published randomized controlled trials for these four medications from MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as prior systematic reviews.
We extracted key measures of medication efficacy (reduction in hemoglobin A1C) and safety (serious adverse events) from qualifying trials. Study results were pooled for each medication using random effects meta-analysis.
We identified 106 qualifying trials for DPP4 inhibitors, of which 88 had run-in phases and 18 did not. The average run-in phase duration was 4.0 weeks (range 1–21), and 73% of run-in phases administered placebo rather than active drug. The reduction in hemoglobin A1C compared to baseline was similar for trials with and without run-in phases (0.70%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.75 vs 0.76%, 95% CI 0.69–0.84, p = 0.27). The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was also similar for trials with and without run-in phases (4%, 95% CI: 3–5% vs 3%, 95% CI: 1–4%, p = 0.35).
Trials with run-in phases provided similar estimates for medication efficacy and safety compared to trials without run-in phases. Because run-in phases are costly and time-consuming, these results call their utility into question for clinical trials of short duration.
KEY WORDSrun-in lead-in clinical trial study design
We thank Dr. Donald Redelmeier, Dr. Chana Sacks, Dr. Nicola Goldberg, and Kristina Stefanini for providing comments on earlier versions of our manuscript (none received any compensation for their work).
Study concept and design: Fralick M, Kesselheim A, and Avorn J.
Acquisition of data: Fralick M and Abdurrob A.
Analysis/interpretation of data: Fralick M, Kesselheim A, Franklin J, and Avorn J.
Drafting of the manuscript: Fralick M.
Critical revision of the manuscript: Kesselheim A, Franklin J, Avorn J, and Abdurrob A.
Statistical analysis: Fralick M and Franklin J
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Franklin is the principal investigator on a grant from Merck. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Pocock S. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient, part i. Statistician. 1982;31:1–18.Google Scholar
- 2.Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard—lessons from the history of rcts. Malina D, ed. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2175–2181.Google Scholar
- 10.Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@fda: fda approved drug products. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/. Accessed January 24, 2017.
- 11.Dersimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1986;188:177–188.Google Scholar
- 13.Merill R. Introduction to epidemiology. 7th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC; 2017.Google Scholar
- 14.Oleckno WA. Concepts and Methods. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc; 2008.Google Scholar
- 15.Office of New Drugs In the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM377108.pdf. Good review practice: clinical review of investigational new drug applications. Accessed February 22, 2017.
- 20.Correia LCL, Rassi Jr. A. Paradigm-hf: a paradigm shift in heart failure treatment? Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016:77–79.Google Scholar