Alistair J O'Malley1, Katya Zelevinsky, Yulei He, Alisa B Busch. 1. *Department of Biomedical Data Science and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH †Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA ‡Office of Research and Methodology, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD §McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA ∥Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns about randomized controlled trial (RCT) generalizability typically center on characteristics of RCT patient participants. Possibly there are RCT site characteristics that distinguish RCT outcomes from those that can be expected in non-RCT settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether site propensity toward RCT enrollment is associated with recovery outcomes for patients and whether the association differs between patients who participate in a RCT compared with those who remain in an observational (OBS) treatment environment. DATA: Study participants with acute bipolar depression from The Systematic Treatment Enhancing Program for Bipolar Disorder acute depression pharmacotherapy RCT (N=337) and OBS treatment arm (N=1581). METHODS: A longitudinal OBS study comparing the likelihood of recovery in the RCT to the OBS arm, allowing effect modification by site high RCT enrollment propensity (defined as >the median) and other predictors over a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Non-RCT participants who received care in sites with high RCT enrollment propensity had a higher probability of recovering from their bipolar-depression episode compared with participants from low propensity sites [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)=2.13 (1.28-3.55)]. RCT enrollment propensity was not associated with recovery outcomes for RCT participants [1.03 (0.35-3.03)]. CONCLUSIONS: Sites with high propensity to enroll patients in RCTs appear to have unobserved characteristics, which play a significant role in outcomes for non-RCT patients. For RCT participants in low-enrollment sites, possibly RCT protocols, which proscribe care delivery and monitoring, attenuate this effect. These results have implications for future research to improve outcomes in nonresearch care settings.
BACKGROUND: Concerns about randomized controlled trial (RCT) generalizability typically center on characteristics of RCT patientparticipants. Possibly there are RCT site characteristics that distinguish RCT outcomes from those that can be expected in non-RCT settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether site propensity toward RCT enrollment is associated with recovery outcomes for patients and whether the association differs between patients who participate in a RCT compared with those who remain in an observational (OBS) treatment environment. DATA: Study participants with acute bipolar depression from The Systematic Treatment Enhancing Program for Bipolar Disorder acute depression pharmacotherapy RCT (N=337) and OBS treatment arm (N=1581). METHODS: A longitudinal OBS study comparing the likelihood of recovery in the RCT to the OBS arm, allowing effect modification by site high RCT enrollment propensity (defined as >the median) and other predictors over a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Non-RCT participants who received care in sites with high RCT enrollment propensity had a higher probability of recovering from their bipolar-depression episode compared with participants from low propensity sites [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)=2.13 (1.28-3.55)]. RCT enrollment propensity was not associated with recovery outcomes for RCT participants [1.03 (0.35-3.03)]. CONCLUSIONS: Sites with high propensity to enroll patients in RCTs appear to have unobserved characteristics, which play a significant role in outcomes for non-RCT patients. For RCT participants in low-enrollment sites, possibly RCT protocols, which proscribe care delivery and monitoring, attenuate this effect. These results have implications for future research to improve outcomes in nonresearch care settings.
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Jüni; Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; Christopher Bartlett; Matthias Egger Journal: Stat Med Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: David J Miklowitz; Michael W Otto; Ellen Frank; Noreen A Reilly-Harrington; Stephen R Wisniewski; Jane N Kogan; Andrew A Nierenberg; Joseph R Calabrese; Lauren B Marangell; Laszlo Gyulai; Mako Araga; Jodi M Gonzalez; Edwin R Shirley; Michael E Thase; Gary S Sachs Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-04
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Gary S Sachs; Michael E Thase; Michael W Otto; Mark Bauer; David Miklowitz; Stephen R Wisniewski; Philip Lavori; Barry Lebowitz; Mathew Rudorfer; Ellen Frank; Andrew A Nierenberg; Maurizio Fava; Charles Bowden; Terence Ketter; Lauren Marangell; Joseph Calabrese; David Kupfer; Jerrold F Rosenbaum Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Gary S Sachs; Andrew A Nierenberg; Joseph R Calabrese; Lauren B Marangell; Stephen R Wisniewski; Laszlo Gyulai; Edward S Friedman; Charles L Bowden; Mark D Fossey; Michael J Ostacher; Terence A Ketter; Jayendra Patel; Peter Hauser; Daniel Rapport; James M Martinez; Michael H Allen; David J Miklowitz; Michael W Otto; Ellen B Dennehy; Michael E Thase Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245