John D Seeger1, Kourtney J Davis2, Michelle R Iannacone3, Wei Zhou4, Nancy Dreyer5, Almut G Winterstein6, Nancy Santanello7, Barry Gertz8, Jesse A Berlin2. 1. Life Sciences Epidemiology, Optum, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Global Epidemiology, Johnson & Johnson, Titusville, New Jersey, USA. 3. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 4. Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA. 5. Real-World Solutions, IQVIA, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 6. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 7. Nancy Santanello Research Consultant, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Blackstone, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical trials compare outcomes among patients receiving study treatment with comparators drawn from the same source. These internal controls are missing in single arm trials and from long-term extensions (LTE) of trials including only the treatment arm. An external control group derived from a different setting is then required to assess safety or effectiveness. METHODS: We present examples of external control groups that demonstrate some of the issues that arise and make recommendations to address them through careful assessment of the data source fitness for use, design, and analysis steps. RESULTS: Inclusion and exclusion criteria and context that produce a trial population may result in trial patients with different clinical characteristics than are present in an external comparison group. If these differences affect the risk of outcomes, then a comparison of outcome occurrence will be confounded. Further, patients who continue into LTE may differ from those initially entering the trial due to treatment effects. Application of appropriate methods is needed to make valid inferences when such treatment or selection effects are present. Outcome measures in a trial may be ascertained and defined differently from what can be obtained in an external comparison group. Differences in sensitivity and specificity for identification or measurement of study outcomes leads to information bias that can also invalidate inferences. CONCLUSION: This review concentrates on threats to the valid use of external control groups both in the scenarios of single arm trials and LTE of randomized controlled trials, along with methodological approaches to mitigate them.
PURPOSE: Clinical trials compare outcomes among patients receiving study treatment with comparators drawn from the same source. These internal controls are missing in single arm trials and from long-term extensions (LTE) of trials including only the treatment arm. An external control group derived from a different setting is then required to assess safety or effectiveness. METHODS: We present examples of external control groups that demonstrate some of the issues that arise and make recommendations to address them through careful assessment of the data source fitness for use, design, and analysis steps. RESULTS: Inclusion and exclusion criteria and context that produce a trial population may result in trial patients with different clinical characteristics than are present in an external comparison group. If these differences affect the risk of outcomes, then a comparison of outcome occurrence will be confounded. Further, patients who continue into LTE may differ from those initially entering the trial due to treatment effects. Application of appropriate methods is needed to make valid inferences when such treatment or selection effects are present. Outcome measures in a trial may be ascertained and defined differently from what can be obtained in an external comparison group. Differences in sensitivity and specificity for identification or measurement of study outcomes leads to information bias that can also invalidate inferences. CONCLUSION: This review concentrates on threats to the valid use of external control groups both in the scenarios of single arm trials and LTE of randomized controlled trials, along with methodological approaches to mitigate them.
Authors: N Gökbuget; M Kelsh; V Chia; A Advani; R Bassan; H Dombret; M Doubek; A K Fielding; S Giebel; V Haddad; D Hoelzer; C Holland; N Ifrah; A Katz; T Maniar; G Martinelli; M Morgades; S O'Brien; J-M Ribera; J M Rowe; A Stein; M Topp; M Wadleigh; H Kantarjian Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Rifaquat Rahman; Steffen Ventz; Jon McDunn; Bill Louv; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Mei-Yin C Polley; Fahar Merchant; Lauren E Abrey; Joshua E Allen; Laura K Aguilar; Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova; David Arons; Kirk Tanner; Stephen Bagley; Mustafa Khasraw; Timothy Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Brian M Alexander; Lorenzo Trippa Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Dina Oksen; Patricia Prince; Emmanuelle Boutmy; Elizabeth M Garry; Barbara Ellers-Lenz; Adina Estrin; Andreas Johne; Patrice Verpillat; Nicolle M Gatto Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: David Merola; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Sushama K Sreedhara; Luke E Zabotka; Kenneth Quinto; John Concato; Shirley V Wang Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: 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 Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: John D Seeger; Kourtney J Davis; Michelle R Iannacone; Wei Zhou; Nancy Dreyer; Almut G Winterstein; Nancy Santanello; Barry Gertz; Jesse A Berlin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-10-04 Impact factor: 2.890