Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29980181›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

The "RCT augmentation": a novel simulation method to add patient heterogeneity into phase III trials.

Helene Karcher, Shuai Fu, Jie Meng, Mikkel Zöllner Ankarfeldt, Orestis Efthimiou, Mark Belger, Josep Maria Haro, Lucien Abenhaim, Clementine Nordon, GetReal Consortium Work Package 2

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Helene KarcherAnalytica Laser, Audrey House, 16-20 Ely Place, London, EC1N 6SN, UK. helene@alum.mit.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0798-4084
Shuai FuAnalytica Laser, Loerrach, Germany.
Jie MengAnalytica Laser, Loerrach, Germany.
Mikkel Zöllner AnkarfeldtNovo Nordisk A/S, Soeborg, Denmark.
Orestis EfthimiouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
Mark BelgerEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Research Centre, Windlesham, UK.
Josep Maria HaroParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Lucien AbenhaimAnalytica Laser, Audrey House, 16-20 Ely Place, London, EC1N 6SN, UK.
Clementine NordonLASER Core, Paris, France.
GetReal Consortium Work Package 2

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) typically exclude certain patient subgroups, thereby potentially jeopardizing estimation of a drug's effects when prescribed to wider populations and under routine care ("effectiveness"). Conversely, enrolling heterogeneous populations in RCTs can increase endpoint variability and compromise detection of a drug's effect. We developed the "RCT augmentation" method to quantitatively support RCT design in the identification of exclusion criteria to relax to address both of these considerations. In the present manuscript, we describe the method and a case study in schizophrenia.

methodsWe applied typical RCT exclusion criteria in a real-world dataset (cohort) of schizophrenia patients to define the "RCT population" subgroup, and assessed the impact of re-including each of the following patient subgroups: (1) illness duration 1-3 years; (2) suicide attempt; (3) alcohol abuse; (4) substance abuse; and (5) private practice management. Predictive models were built using data from different "augmented RCT populations" (i.e., subgroups where patients with one or two of such characteristics were re-included) to estimate the absolute effectiveness of the two most prevalent antipsychotics against real-world results from the entire cohort. Concurrently, the impact on RCT results of relaxing exclusion criteria was evaluated by calculating the comparative efficacy of those two antipsychotics in virtual RCTs drawing on different "augmented RCT populations".

resultsData from the "RCT population", which was defined with typical exclusion criteria, allowed for a prediction of effectiveness with a bias < 2% and mean squared error (MSE) = 5.8-6.8%. Compared to this typical RCT, RCTs using augmented populations provided improved effectiveness predictions (bias < 2%, MSE = 5.3-6.7%), while returning more variable comparative effects. The impact of augmentation depended on the exclusion criterion relaxed. Furthermore, half of the benefit of relaxing each criterion was gained from re-including the first 10-20% of patients with the corresponding real-world characteristic.

conclusionsSimulating the inclusion of real-world subpopulations into an RCT before running it allows for quantification of the impact of each re-inclusion upon effect detection (statistical power) and generalizability of trial results, thereby explicating this trade-off and enabling a controlled increase in population heterogeneity in the RCT design.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationPatient SelectionClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical drug developmentComparative effectivenessEffectivenessExternal validityModeling and simulation studyOptimal trial designPatient heterogeneityPragmatic trialsPredictive modelingReal-world

Identifiers

PMID29980181
PMCPMC6035409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.