Cargando…
Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data
BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9615407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36303169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02594-9 |
_version_ | 1784820414776606720 |
---|---|
author | Hanlon, Peter Butterly, Elaine Shah, Anoop S. V. Hannigan, Laurie J. Wild, Sarah H. Guthrie, Bruce Mair, Frances S. Dias, Sofia Welton, Nicky J. McAllister, David A. |
author_facet | Hanlon, Peter Butterly, Elaine Shah, Anoop S. V. Hannigan, Laurie J. Wild, Sarah H. Guthrie, Bruce Mair, Frances S. Dias, Sofia Welton, Nicky J. McAllister, David A. |
author_sort | Hanlon, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. RESULTS: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55–0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34–0.55; Parkinson’s disease) to 0.87 (0.58–1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02594-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9615407 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96154072022-10-29 Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data Hanlon, Peter Butterly, Elaine Shah, Anoop S. V. Hannigan, Laurie J. Wild, Sarah H. Guthrie, Bruce Mair, Frances S. Dias, Sofia Welton, Nicky J. McAllister, David A. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. RESULTS: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55–0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34–0.55; Parkinson’s disease) to 0.87 (0.58–1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02594-9. BioMed Central 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9615407/ /pubmed/36303169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02594-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hanlon, Peter Butterly, Elaine Shah, Anoop S. V. Hannigan, Laurie J. Wild, Sarah H. Guthrie, Bruce Mair, Frances S. Dias, Sofia Welton, Nicky J. McAllister, David A. Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title | Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title_full | Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title_fullStr | Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title_short | Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
title_sort | assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9615407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36303169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02594-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hanlonpeter assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT butterlyelaine assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT shahanoopsv assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT hanniganlauriej assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT wildsarahh assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT guthriebruce assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT mairfrancess assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT diassofia assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT weltonnickyj assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata AT mcallisterdavida assessingtrialrepresentativenessusingseriousadverseeventsanobservationalanalysisusingaggregateandindividualleveldatafromclinicaltrialsandroutinehealthcaredata |