ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2024
Statistical approaches for the integration of external controls in a cystic fibrosis clinical trial: a simulation and an application.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Development of new therapeutics for a rare disease such as cystic fibrosis is hindered by challenges in accruing enough patients for clinical trials. Use of external controls from well-matched historical trials can reduce prospective trial sizes, and this approach has supported regulatory approval of new interventions for other rare diseases. Here we consider 3 statistical methods that incorporate external controls into a hypothetical clinical trial of a new treatment to reduce pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis patients: (1) inverse probability weighting, (2) bayesian modeling with propensity-score-based power priors, and (3) hierarchical bayesian modeling with commensurate priors. We compare the methods via simulation study and in a real clinical-trial data setting. Simulations showed that bias in the treatment effect was less than 4% using any of the methods, with type I error (or in the bayesian cases, posterior probability of the null hypothesis) usually less than 5%. Inverse probability weighting was sensitive to similarity in prevalence of the covariates between historical and prospective trial populations. The commensurate prior method performed best with real clinical trial data. Using external controls to reduce trial size in future clinical trials holds promise and can advance the therapeutic pipeline for rare diseases. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.
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.