RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Open-label extension (OLE) studies following blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmaceuticals are increasingly being carried out but do not conform to regulatory standards and questions surround the validity of their evidence. OLE studies are usually discussed as a homogenous group, yet substantial differences in study design still meet the definition of an OLE. We describe published papers reporting OLE studies focussing on stated objectives, design, conduct and reporting. METHOD: A search of Embase and Medline databases for 1996 to July 2008 revealed 268 papers reporting OLE studies that met our eligibility criteria. A random sample of 50 was selected for detailed review. RESULTS: Over 80% of the studies had efficacy stated as an objective. The most common methods of allocation at the start of the OLE were for all RCT participants to switch to one active treatment or for only participants on the new drug to continue, but in three studies all participants were re-randomized at the start of the OLE. Eligibility criteria and other selection factors resulted in on average of 74% of participants in the preceding RCT(s) enrolling in the OLE and only 57% completed it. CONCLUSIONS: Published OLE studies do not form a homogenous group with respect to design or retention of participants, and thus the validity of evidence from an OLE should be judged on an individual basis. The term 'open label' suggests bias through lack of blinding, but slippage in relation to the sample randomized in the preceding RCT may be the more important threat to validity.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Open-label extension (OLE) studies following blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmaceuticals are increasingly being carried out but do not conform to regulatory standards and questions surround the validity of their evidence. OLE studies are usually discussed as a homogenous group, yet substantial differences in study design still meet the definition of an OLE. We describe published papers reporting OLE studies focussing on stated objectives, design, conduct and reporting. METHOD: A search of Embase and Medline databases for 1996 to July 2008 revealed 268 papers reporting OLE studies that met our eligibility criteria. A random sample of 50 was selected for detailed review. RESULTS: Over 80% of the studies had efficacy stated as an objective. The most common methods of allocation at the start of the OLE were for all RCT participants to switch to one active treatment or for only participants on the new drug to continue, but in three studies all participants were re-randomized at the start of the OLE. Eligibility criteria and other selection factors resulted in on average of 74% of participants in the preceding RCT(s) enrolling in the OLE and only 57% completed it. CONCLUSIONS: Published OLE studies do not form a homogenous group with respect to design or retention of participants, and thus the validity of evidence from an OLE should be judged on an individual basis. The term 'open label' suggests bias through lack of blinding, but slippage in relation to the sample randomized in the preceding RCT may be the more important threat to validity.
Authors: Thomas Semlitsch; Jennifer Engler; Andrea Siebenhofer; Klaus Jeitler; Andrea Berghold; Karl Horvath Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-11-09
Authors: Emmy De Buck; Vere Borra; Jestin N Carlson; David A Zideman; Eunice M Singletary; Therese Djärv Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Luis Enrique Colunga-Lozano; Franscisco Javier Gonzalez Torres; Netzahualpilli Delgado-Figueroa; Daniel A Gonzalez-Padilla; Adrian V Hernandez; Yuani Roman; Carlos A Cuello-García Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-29