Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34165790›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022

Uncontrolled Extensions of Clinical Trials and the Use of External Controls-Scoping Opportunities and Methods.

Ching-Yu Wang, Jesse A Berlin, Barry Gertz, Kourtney Davis, Jie Li, Nancy A Dreyer, Wei Zhou, John D Seeger, Nancy Santanello, Almut G Winterstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Ching-Yu WangPharmaceutical Outcomes & Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation & Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Jesse A BerlinEpidemiology, Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, New Jersey, USA.
Barry GertzBlackstone Life Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Kourtney DavisGlobal Epidemiology, Janssen R&D, Titusville, New Jersey, USA.
Jie LiUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Nancy A DreyerReal-World Solutions, IQVIA, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Wei ZhouMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA.
John D SeegerOptum, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nancy SantanelloPharmacoepidemiology Consultant, New Hope, Pennsylvania, USA.
Almut G WintersteinPharmaceutical Outcomes & Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation & Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Funding

International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased interest in real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical and regulatory decision making and the need to evaluate long-term benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products raise the importance of understanding the use of external controls (ECs) for uncontrolled extensions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched clinicaltrials.gov from 2009 to 2019 for uncontrolled extensions and assessed the use of ECs in the trial protocol registry and PubMed. We present characteristics of identified uncontrolled extensions, their adoption of ECs, and a qualitative appraisal of published uncontrolled extensions with ECs according to good pharmacoepidemiologic practice. The number of uncontrolled extensions increased slightly across the study period, resulting in a total of 1,115 studies. Most originated from phase III RCTs (62.2%) and specified safety outcomes (61.9% among those with specified outcomes). Most uncontrolled extensions incorporated no control group with only 7 out of 1,115 (0.6%) employing ECs. For those studies with ECs, all involved treatments for rare conditions and assessment of effectiveness. Attempts to balance comparison groups varied from none mentioned to propensity score matching. We noted consistent deficiencies in outcome ascertainment methods and approaches to address attrition bias. The contrast of the large and growing number of uncontrolled extensions with the small number of studies that utilized ECs showed clear opportunities for enhancement in design, measurement, and analysis of uncontrolled extensions to allow causal inferences on long-term treatment effects. As extensions continue to expand within RWE regulatory frameworks, development of guidelines for use of EC with uncontrolled extensions is needed.

Indexed as

Control GroupsBiasDatabases, FactualHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34165790
PMCPMC9290853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.