Participant characteristics and exclusion from trials: a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from phase 3/4 industry-funded trials in chronic medical conditions

Objectives Trials often do not represent their target populations, threatening external validity. The aim was to assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count and/or race/ethnicity are associated with likelihood of screen failure (i.e., failure to be enrolled in the trial for any reason) among potential trial participants.Design Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant-level data (IPD).SettingIndustry-funded phase 3/4 trials in chronic medical conditions. Participants were identified as “enrolled” or “screen failure” using trial IPD.Participants Data were available for 52 trials involving 72,178 screened individuals of whom 24,733 (34%) failed screening.Main outcome measures For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, regressed on age (per 10-year increment), sex (male versus female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity) and race/ethnicity. Trial-level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition.ResultsIn age- and sex-adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, though weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (age, per 10-year increment: odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credibility interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.04 and male sex: OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (OR 0.97 per additional comorbidity, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.00, adjusted for age and sex). Those who self-reported as Black were slightly more likely to fail screening (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09); an effect which persisted after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity count (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, but there was evidence of heterogeneity by sex across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log-scale of 0.01-0.13).Conclusions Though the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among non-randomised participants, we identified mostly weak associations between age, sex, comorbidity count and Black race/ethnicity and increased likelihood of screen failure. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registration Relevant trials in chronic medical conditions were identified according to pre-specified criteria (PROSPERO CRD42018048202) then analysed according to availability of IPD. <br/

Assessing trial representativeness using Serious Adverse Events: An observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data

Background: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. Methods: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. Results: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was &lt;1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates &lt;1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55–0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34–0.55; Parkinson’s disease) to 0.87 (0.58–1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. Conclusions: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common

Representation of people with comorbidity and multimorbidity in clinical trials of novel drug therapies:an individual-level participant data analysis

Background: Clinicians are less likely to prescribe guideline-recommended treatments to people with multimorbidity than to people with a single condition. Doubts as to the applicability of clinical trials of drug treatments (the gold standard for evidence-based medicine) when people have co-existing diseases (comorbidity) may underlie this apparent reluctance. Therefore, for a range of index conditions, we measured the comorbidity among participants in clinical trials of novel drug therapies and compared this to the comorbidity among patients in the community. Methods: Data from industry-sponsored phase 3/4 multicentre trials of novel drug therapies for chronic medical conditions were identified from two repositories: Clinical Study Data Request and the Yale University Open Data Access project. We identified 116 trials (n = 122,969 participants) for 22 index conditions. Community patients were identified from a nationally representative sample of 2.3 million patients in Wales, UK. Twenty-one comorbidities were identified from medication use based on pre-specified definitions. We assessed the prevalence of each comorbidity and the total number of comorbidities (level of multimorbidity), for each trial and in community patients. Results: In the trials, the commonest comorbidities in order of declining prevalence were chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, affective disorders, acid-related disorders, asthma/COPD and diabetes. These conditions were also common in community-based patients. Mean comorbidity count for trial participants was approximately half that seen in community-based patients. Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of trial participants had a high degree of multimorbidity. For example, in asthma and psoriasis trials, 10–15% of participants had ≥ 3 conditions overall, while in osteoporosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials 40–60% of participants had ≥ 3 conditions overall. Conclusions: Comorbidity and multimorbidity are less common in trials than in community populations with the same index condition. Comorbidity and multimorbidity are, nevertheless, common in trials. This suggests that standard, industry-funded clinical trials are an underused resource for investigating treatment effects in people with comorbidity and multimorbidity

Assessing trial representativeness using Serious Adverse Events : An observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data

Background: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. Methods: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. Results: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was &lt;1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates &lt;1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55–0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34–0.55; Parkinson’s disease) to 0.87 (0.58–1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. Conclusions: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common

Comorbidity and health related quality of life in people with a chronic medical condition in randomised clinical trials : an individual participant data meta-analysis

Background: Health-related quality of life metrics evaluate treatments in ways that matter to patients, so are often included in randomised clinical trials (hereafter trials). Multimorbidity, where individuals have 2 or more conditions, is negatively associated with quality of life. However, whether multimorbidity predicts change over time or modifies treatment effects for quality of life is unknown. Therefore, clinicians and guideline developers are uncertain about the applicability of trial findings to people with multimorbidity. We examined whether comorbidity count (higher counts indicating greater multimorbidity) (i) is associated with quality of life at baseline; (ii) predicts change in quality of life over time; and/or (iii) modifies treatment effects on quality of life. Methods and findings: Included trials were registered on the United States trials registry for selected index medical conditions and drug classes, phase 2/3, 3 or 4, had ≥300 participants, a nonrestrictive upper age limit, and were available on 1 of 2 trial repositories on 21 November 2016 and 18 May 2018, respectively. Of 124 meeting these criteria, 56 trials (33,421 participants, 16 index conditions, and 23 drug classes) collected a generic quality of life outcome measure (35 EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D), 31 36-item short form survey (SF-36) with 10 collecting both). Blinding and completeness of follow up were examined for each trial. Using trials where individual participant data (IPD) was available from 2 repositories, a comorbidity count was calculated from medical history and/or prescriptions data. Linear regressions were fitted for the association between comorbidity count and (i) quality of life at baseline; (ii) change in quality of life during trial follow up; and (iii) treatment effects on quality of life. These results were then combined in Bayesian linear models. Posterior samples were summarised via the mean, 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles as credible intervals (95% CI) and via the proportion with values less than 0 as the probability (PBayes) of a negative association. All results are in standardised units (obtained by dividing the EQ-5D/SF-36 estimates by published population standard deviations). Per additional comorbidity, adjusting for age and sex, across all index conditions and treatment comparisons, comorbidity count was associated with lower quality of life at baseline and with a decline in quality of life over time (EQ-5D −0.02 [95% CI −0.03 to −0.01], PBayes &gt; 0.999). Associations were similar, but with wider 95% CIs crossing the null for SF-36-PCS and SF-36-MCS (−0.05 [−0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.956 and −0.05 [−0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.966, respectively). Importantly, there was no evidence of any interaction between comorbidity count and treatment efficacy for either EQ-5D or SF-36 (EQ-5D −0.0035 [95% CI −0.0153 to −0.0065], PBayes = 0.746; SF-36-MCS (−0.0111 [95% CI −0.0647 to 0.0416], PBayes = 0.70 and SF-36-PCS −0.0092 [95% CI −0.0758 to 0.0476], PBayes = 0.631. Conclusions: Treatment effects on quality of life did not differ by multimorbidity (measured via a comorbidity count) at baseline—for the medical conditions studied, types and severity of comorbidities and level of quality of life at baseline, suggesting that evidence from clinical trials is likely to be applicable to settings with (at least modestly) higher levels of comorbidity. Trial registration: A prespecified protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018048202)

Treatment effect modification due to comorbidity : Individual participant data meta-analyses of 120 randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: People with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials. Empirical estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity are lacking, leading to uncertainty in treatment recommendations. We aimed to produce estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity using individual participant data (IPD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained IPD for 120 industry-sponsored phase 3/4 trials across 22 index conditions (n = 128,331). Trials had to be registered between 1990 and 2017 and have recruited ≥300 people. Included trials were multicentre and international. For each index condition, we analysed the outcome most frequently reported in the included trials. We performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to estimate modification of treatment effect by comorbidity. First, for each trial, we modelled the interaction between comorbidity and treatment arm adjusted for age and sex. Second, for each treatment within each index condition, we meta-analysed the comorbidity-treatment interaction terms from each trial. We estimated the effect of comorbidity measured in 3 ways: (i) the number of comorbidities (in addition to the index condition); (ii) presence or absence of the 6 commonest comorbid diseases for each index condition; and (iii) using continuous markers of underlying conditions (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)). Treatment effects were modelled on the usual scale for the type of outcome (absolute scale for numerical outcomes, relative scale for binary outcomes). Mean age in the trials ranged from 37.1 (allergic rhinitis trials) to 73.0 (dementia trials) and percentage of male participants range from 4.4% (osteoporosis trials) to 100% (benign prostatic hypertrophy trials). The percentage of participants with 3 or more comorbidities ranged from 2.3% (allergic rhinitis trials) to 57% (systemic lupus erythematosus trials). We found no evidence of modification of treatment efficacy by comorbidity, for any of the 3 measures of comorbidity. This was the case for 20 conditions for which the outcome variable was continuous (e.g., change in glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetes) and for 3 conditions in which the outcomes were discrete events (e.g., number of headaches in migraine). Although all were null, estimates of treatment effect modification were more precise in some cases (e.g., sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes-interaction term for comorbidity count 0.004, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) while for others credible intervals were wide (e.g., corticosteroids for asthma-interaction term -0.22, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.54). The main limitation is that these trials were not designed or powered to assess variation in treatment effect by comorbidity, and relatively few trial participants had >3 comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of treatment effect modification rarely consider comorbidity. Our findings demonstrate that for trials included in this analysis, there was no empirical evidence of treatment effect modification by comorbidity. The standard assumption used in evidence syntheses is that efficacy is constant across subgroups, although this is often criticised. Our findings suggest that for modest levels of comorbidities, this assumption is reasonable. Thus, trial efficacy findings can be combined with data on natural history and competing risks to assess the likely overall benefit of treatments in the context of comorbidity

Participant characteristics and exclusion from trials: a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from phase 3/4 industry-funded trials in chronic medical conditions

Objectives: To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure). Design: Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data. Setting: Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions. Participants: Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage. Main outcome measures: For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition. Results: In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13). Conclusions: Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018048202

Participant characteristics and exclusion from trials: a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from phase 3/4 industry-funded trials in chronic medical conditions

Objectives: To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure). Design: Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data. Setting: Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions. Participants: Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage. Main outcome measures: For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition. Results: In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13). Conclusions: Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018048202

Ionic liquids at electrified interfaces

Until recently, “room-temperature” (<100–150 °C) liquid-state electrochemistry was mostly electrochemistry of diluted electrolytes(1)–(4) where dissolved salt ions were surrounded by a considerable amount of solvent molecules. Highly concentrated liquid electrolytes were mostly considered in the narrow (albeit important) niche of high-temperature electrochemistry of molten inorganic salts(5-9) and in the even narrower niche of “first-generation” room temperature ionic liquids, RTILs (such as chloro-aluminates and alkylammonium nitrates).(10-14) The situation has changed dramatically in the 2000s after the discovery of new moisture- and temperature-stable RTILs.(15, 16) These days, the “later generation” RTILs attracted wide attention within the electrochemical community.(17-31) Indeed, RTILs, as a class of compounds, possess a unique combination of properties (high charge density, electrochemical stability, low/negligible volatility, tunable polarity, etc.) that make them very attractive substances from fundamental and application points of view.(32-38) Most importantly, they can mix with each other in “cocktails” of one’s choice to acquire the desired properties (e.g., wider temperature range of the liquid phase(39, 40)) and can serve as almost “universal” solvents.(37, 41, 42) It is worth noting here one of the advantages of RTILs as compared to their high-temperature molten salt (HTMS)(43) “sister-systems”.(44) In RTILs the dissolved molecules are not imbedded in a harsh high temperature environment which could be destructive for many classes of fragile (organic) molecules