ArticleClinical and translational science2021
Contextualizing single-arm trials with real-world data: An emulated target trial comparing therapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Cochrane Corner: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilar for macular degeneration.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Application of Artificial Intelligence Models to Predict the Onset or Recurrence of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Applying the estimand and target trial frameworks to external control analyses using observational data: a case study in the solid tumor setting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Tube Versus Trabeculectomy IRIS Registry Study: 1-Year Secondary Treatment Outcomes.American journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Methods of Clinical Trial Emulation Utilizing Data From the Comparison of AMD Treatment Trial (CATT) and the IRIS® Registry.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One-in-four ophthalmology trials are single-armed, which poses challenges to their interpretation. We demonstrate how real-world cohorts used as external/synthetic control arms can contextualize such trials. We herein emulated a target trial on the intention-to-treat efficacy of off-label bevacizumab (q6w) pro re nata relative to fixed-interval aflibercept (q8w) for improving week 54 visual acuity of eyes affected by neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The bevacizumab arm (n = 65) was taken from the ABC randomized controlled trial. A total of 4,471 aflibercept-treated eyes aligning with the ABC trial eligibility were identified from electronic health records and synthetic control arms were created by emulating randomization conditional on age, sex, and baseline visual read via exact matching and propensity score methods. We undertook an inferiority analysis on mean difference at 54 weeks; outcomes regression on achieving a change in visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15, greater than or equal to 10, and less than or equal to -15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy (ETDRS) letters at week 54; and a time-to-event analysis on achieving a change in visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15, greater than or equal to 10, and less than or equal to -15 ETDRS letters by week 54. The findings suggest off-label bevacizumab to be neither inferior nor superior to licensed aflibercept. Our study highlights how real-world cohorts representing the counterfactual intervention could aid the interpretation of single-armed trials when analyzed in accord to the target trial framework. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? One-in-four randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology are single-armed, which poses challenges for interpreting their efficacy relative to standard of care. Recent conceptual advances in the methods of causal inference and in the emulation of target trials suggests that the standard-of-care arms representing the counterfactual intervention can be approximated with observational data. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? How real-world cohorts representing the counterfactual intervention can aid the interpretation of single-armed ophthalmological trials. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Our study highlights how real-world cohorts representing the counterfactual intervention could aid the interpretation of single-armed ophthalmological trials when undertaken in accord with the target trial framework. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? External counterfactual arms could reduce the time and cost to reach potential regulatory approval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.