Testing the "RCT augmentation" methodology: A trial simulation study to guide the broadening of trials eligibility criteria and inform on effectiveness.

Effectiveness Exclusion criteria Machine learning RCTs Real-world

Journal

Contemporary clinical trials communications
ISSN: 2451-8654
Titre abrégé: Contemp Clin Trials Commun
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101671157

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Historique:
received: 26 01 2023
revised: 04 04 2023
accepted: 12 04 2023
medline: 3 7 2023
pubmed: 3 7 2023
entrez: 3 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Exclusion criteria that are treatment effect modifiers (TEM) decrease RCTs results generalisability and the potentials of effectiveness estimation. In "augmented RCTs", a small proportion of otherwise-excluded patients are included to allow for effectiveness estimation. In Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) RCTs, older age and comorbidity are common exclusion criteria, while also TEM. We simulated HL RCTs augmented with age or comorbidity, and explored in each scenario the impact of augmentation on effectiveness estimation accuracy. Simulated data with a population of HL individuals initiating drug A or B was generated. There were drug-age and drug-comorbidity interactions in the simulated data, with a greater magnitude of the former compared to the latter. Multiple augmented RCTs were simulated by randomly selecting patients with increasing proportions of older, or comorbid patients. Treatment effect size was expressed using the between-group Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) difference at 3 years. For each augmentation proportion, a model estimating the "real-world" treatment effect (effectiveness) was fitted and the estimation error measured (Root Mean Square Error, RMSE). In simulated RCTs including none (0%), or the real-world proportion (30%) of older patients, the interquartile range of RMST difference was 0.4-0.5 years and 0.2-0.3 years, respectively, and RMSE were 0.198 years (highest possible error) and 0.056 years (lowest), respectively. Augmenting RCTs with 5% older patients decreased estimation error substantially (RMSE = 0.076 years). Augmentation with comorbid patients proved less useful for effectiveness estimation. In augmented RCTs aiming to inform the effectiveness of drugs, augmentation should concern in priority those exclusion criteria of suspected important TEM magnitude, so as to minimie the proportion of augmentation necessary for good effectiveness estimations.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Exclusion criteria that are treatment effect modifiers (TEM) decrease RCTs results generalisability and the potentials of effectiveness estimation. In "augmented RCTs", a small proportion of otherwise-excluded patients are included to allow for effectiveness estimation. In Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) RCTs, older age and comorbidity are common exclusion criteria, while also TEM. We simulated HL RCTs augmented with age or comorbidity, and explored in each scenario the impact of augmentation on effectiveness estimation accuracy.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Simulated data with a population of HL individuals initiating drug A or B was generated. There were drug-age and drug-comorbidity interactions in the simulated data, with a greater magnitude of the former compared to the latter. Multiple augmented RCTs were simulated by randomly selecting patients with increasing proportions of older, or comorbid patients. Treatment effect size was expressed using the between-group Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) difference at 3 years. For each augmentation proportion, a model estimating the "real-world" treatment effect (effectiveness) was fitted and the estimation error measured (Root Mean Square Error, RMSE).
Results UNASSIGNED
In simulated RCTs including none (0%), or the real-world proportion (30%) of older patients, the interquartile range of RMST difference was 0.4-0.5 years and 0.2-0.3 years, respectively, and RMSE were 0.198 years (highest possible error) and 0.056 years (lowest), respectively. Augmenting RCTs with 5% older patients decreased estimation error substantially (RMSE = 0.076 years). Augmentation with comorbid patients proved less useful for effectiveness estimation.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
In augmented RCTs aiming to inform the effectiveness of drugs, augmentation should concern in priority those exclusion criteria of suspected important TEM magnitude, so as to minimie the proportion of augmentation necessary for good effectiveness estimations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37397428
doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101142
pii: S2451-8654(23)00088-1
pmc: PMC10313858
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

101142

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Références

Oncologist. 2019 Jan;24(1):96-102
pubmed: 30413668
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 20;35(33):3745-3752
pubmed: 28968168
Eur Heart J. 2006 Mar;27(6):671-8
pubmed: 16423872
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Oct;108(4):817-825
pubmed: 32301116
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):78-92
pubmed: 33002206
Stat Med. 1999 Jun 30;18(12):1467-74
pubmed: 10398285
Br J Haematol. 2002 Nov;119(2):432-40
pubmed: 12406082
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 1;34(28):3474-6
pubmed: 27507871
Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):629-633
pubmed: 33828294
Res Synth Methods. 2016 Sep;7(3):264-77
pubmed: 27529762
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 24;12(8):e0183250
pubmed: 28837692
Br J Haematol. 2020 Feb;188(4):540-549
pubmed: 31588564
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 9;12(10):e0180261
pubmed: 28991893
Br J Haematol. 2017 Nov;179(3):471-479
pubmed: 28857136
Oncotarget. 2017 May 23;8(53):91703-91710
pubmed: 29207679
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25;378(4):331-344
pubmed: 29224502
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Mar;36(3):359-368
pubmed: 29214389
Leuk Lymphoma. 2018 Jun;59(6):1413-1419
pubmed: 29045163
Trials. 2015 Nov 03;16:495
pubmed: 26530985
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Dec 07;13:152
pubmed: 24314264
Br J Haematol. 2018 Nov;183(3):400-410
pubmed: 30168134
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1383-9
pubmed: 12663731
JAMA. 2007 Mar 21;297(11):1233-40
pubmed: 17374817
Schizophr Res. 2018 Mar;193:146-153
pubmed: 28712965
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 1;2(11):1179-1180
pubmed: 28877311
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011 Jul 01;10(7):495-506
pubmed: 21720406
Ann Oncol. 2010 Oct;21(10):2045-2051
pubmed: 20423912
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;3(12):1692-1696
pubmed: 28975263
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 20;35(33):3753-3759
pubmed: 28968172
Value Health. 2016 Jan;19(1):75-81
pubmed: 26797239
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):75
pubmed: 29980181
Arch Med Sci. 2015 Aug 12;11(4):708-14
pubmed: 26322081
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jan 28;20(1):2
pubmed: 31987032
Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 01;6(1):e2014050
pubmed: 25045458

Auteurs

Clementine Nordon (C)

Formerly LASER Research, Paris, France.
AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America.

Benoit Sanchez (B)

Formerly LASER Research, Paris, France.

Mei Zhang (M)

Sanofi R&D, Bridgewater, NJ, United States of America.

Xiaowei Wang (X)

Formerly GSK R&D Biostatistics, Collegeville, PA, United States of America.

Phillip Hunt (P)

AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America.

Mark Belger (M)

Eli Lilly, Bracknell, United Kingdom.

Helene Karcher (H)

Novartis, Basel, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH