Department of Pharmacology, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Department of Education and Science, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia.
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 3;13(4):e0194494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194494. eCollection 2018.
Conducting clinical studies in small populations may be very challenging; therefore quality of clinical evidence may differ between rare and non-rare disease therapies.
This register-based study aims to evaluate the characteristics of clinical trials in rare diseases conducted in Latvia and compare them with clinical trials in more common conditions.
The EU Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) was used to identify interventional clinical trials related to rare diseases (n = 51) and to compose a control group of clinical trials in non-rare diseases (n = 102) for further comparison of the trial characteristics.
We found no significant difference in the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials between rare and non-rare diseases (9.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively). However, clinical trials in rare diseases were less likely to be randomized controlled trials (62.7% vs. 83.3%). Rare and non-rare disease clinical trials varied in masking, with rare disease trials less likely to be double blind (45.1% vs. 63.7%). Active comparators were less frequently used in rare disease trials (36.4% vs. 58.8% of controlled trials). Clinical trials in rare diseases enrolled fewer participants than those in non-rare diseases: in Latvia (mean 18.3 vs. 40.2 subjects, respectively), in the European Economic Area (mean 181.0 vs. 626.9 subjects), and in the whole clinical trial (mean 335.8 vs. 1406.3 subjects). Although, we found no significant difference in trial duration between the groups (mean 38.3 vs. 36.4 months).
The current study confirms that clinical trials in rare diseases vary from those in non-rare conditions, with notable differences in enrollment, randomization, masking, and the use of active comparators. However, we found no significant difference in trial duration and the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint.
在小人群中进行临床研究可能极具挑战性;因此,罕见病和非罕见病治疗方法的临床证据质量可能存在差异。
本基于登记的研究旨在评估在拉脱维亚开展的罕见病临床试验的特征,并将其与更常见疾病的临床试验进行比较。
使用欧盟临床试验注册平台(clinicaltrialsregister.eu)识别与罕见病相关的干预性临床试验(n=51),并组成非罕见病临床试验的对照组(n=102),以进一步比较试验特征。
我们发现,罕见病和非罕见病临床试验中,总生存率作为主要终点的使用情况无显著差异(分别为 9.8%和 13.7%)。然而,罕见病临床试验更不可能采用随机对照试验(62.7%与 83.3%)。罕见病和非罕见病临床试验在设盲方法上存在差异,罕见病试验更不可能采用双盲(45.1%与 63.7%)。在罕见病临床试验中,活性对照药物的使用频率较低(36.4%与对照试验的 58.8%)。罕见病临床试验的入组人数少于非罕见病临床试验:在拉脱维亚(分别为平均 18.3 名和 40.2 名受试者)、欧洲经济区(分别为平均 181.0 名和 626.9 名受试者)和整个临床试验(分别为平均 335.8 名和 1406.3 名受试者)。尽管如此,我们发现两组间试验持续时间无显著差异(平均 38.3 个月与 36.4 个月)。
本研究证实,罕见病临床试验与非罕见疾病临床试验存在差异,在入组、随机化、设盲和活性对照药物的使用方面存在显著差异。然而,我们发现试验持续时间和总生存率作为主要终点的使用情况无显著差异。