Suppr超能文献

单臂试验或随机临床试验长期未对照扩展的外部对照方法。

Methods for external control groups for single arm trials or long-term uncontrolled extensions to randomized clinical trials.

机构信息

Life Sciences Epidemiology, Optum, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Global Epidemiology, Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, New Jersey, USA.

出版信息

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Nov;29(11):1382-1392. doi: 10.1002/pds.5141. Epub 2020 Oct 4.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Clinical trials compare outcomes among patients receiving study treatment with comparators drawn from the same source. These internal controls are missing in single arm trials and from long-term extensions (LTE) of trials including only the treatment arm. An external control group derived from a different setting is then required to assess safety or effectiveness.

METHODS

We present examples of external control groups that demonstrate some of the issues that arise and make recommendations to address them through careful assessment of the data source fitness for use, design, and analysis steps.

RESULTS

Inclusion and exclusion criteria and context that produce a trial population may result in trial patients with different clinical characteristics than are present in an external comparison group. If these differences affect the risk of outcomes, then a comparison of outcome occurrence will be confounded. Further, patients who continue into LTE may differ from those initially entering the trial due to treatment effects. Application of appropriate methods is needed to make valid inferences when such treatment or selection effects are present. Outcome measures in a trial may be ascertained and defined differently from what can be obtained in an external comparison group. Differences in sensitivity and specificity for identification or measurement of study outcomes leads to information bias that can also invalidate inferences.

CONCLUSION

This review concentrates on threats to the valid use of external control groups both in the scenarios of single arm trials and LTE of randomized controlled trials, along with methodological approaches to mitigate them.

摘要

目的

临床试验比较接受研究治疗的患者与来自同一来源的对照之间的结果。这些内部对照在单臂试验和仅包括治疗臂的试验的长期扩展(LTE)中缺失。然后需要从不同环境中获得外部对照组来评估安全性或有效性。

方法

我们展示了一些外部对照组的示例,这些示例展示了一些出现的问题,并通过仔细评估数据源的适用性、设计和分析步骤,提出了解决这些问题的建议。

结果

纳入和排除标准以及产生试验人群的背景可能导致试验患者与外部比较组中存在的临床特征不同。如果这些差异影响结局的风险,则对结局发生的比较将受到混杂。此外,由于治疗效果,继续进入 LTE 的患者可能与最初进入试验的患者不同。当存在此类治疗或选择效应时,需要应用适当的方法来做出有效的推断。试验中的结局衡量标准可能与外部比较组中获得的衡量标准不同。识别或测量研究结局的敏感性和特异性差异会导致信息偏倚,也会使推断无效。

结论

本综述集中讨论了在单臂试验和随机对照试验的 LTE 中,有效使用外部对照组面临的威胁,以及减轻这些威胁的方法学方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5c6e/7756307/0a1f5af36387/PDS-29-1382-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验