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/

Correlations between comorbidities in trials and the community: an individual-level participant data meta-analysis

Background: People with comorbidities are under-represented in randomised controlled trials, and it is unknown whether patterns of comorbidity are similar in trials and the community. Methods: Individual-level participant data were obtained for 83 clinical trials (54,688 participants) for 16 index conditions from two trial repositories: Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) and the Centre for Global Clinical Research Data (Vivli). Community data (860,177 individuals) were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank for the same index conditions. Comorbidities were defined using concomitant medications. For each index condition, we estimated correlations between comorbidities separately in trials and community data. For the six commonest comorbidities we estimated all pairwise correlations using Bayesian multivariate probit models, conditioning on age and sex. Correlation estimates from trials with the same index condition were combined into a single estimate. We then compared the trial and community estimates for each index condition. Results: Despite a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the community than in trials, the correlations between comorbidities were mostly similar in both settings. On comparing correlations between the community and trials, 21% of correlations were stronger in the community, 10% were stronger in the trials and 68% were similar in both. In the community, 5% of correlations were negative, 21% were null, 56% were weakly positive and 18% were strongly positive. Equivalent results for the trials were 11%, 33%, 45% and 10% respectively. Conclusions: Comorbidity correlations are generally similar in both the trials and community, providing some evidence for the reporting of comorbidity-specific findings from clinical trials

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

Correlations between comorbidities in trials and the community: An individual-level participant data meta-analysis

David McAllister was funded to complete this work via an Intermediate Clinical Fellowship and Beit Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust, who also supported other costs related to this project such as data access costs and database licences (“Treatment effectiveness in multimorbidity: Combining efficacy estimates from clinical trials with the natural history obtained from large routine healthcare databases to determine net overall treatment Benefits.” - 201492/Z/16/Z). Peter Hanlon is funded through a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Medical Research Council (Grant reference: MR/S021949/1).Background People with comorbidities are under-represented in randomised controlled trials, and it is unknown whether patterns of comorbidity are similar in trials and the community. Methods Individual-level participant data were obtained for 83 clinical trials (54,688 participants) for 16 index conditions from two trial repositories: Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) and the Centre for Global Clinical Research Data (Vivli). Community data (860,177 individuals) were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank for the same index conditions. Comorbidities were defined using concomitant medications. For each index condition, we estimated correlations between comorbidities separately in trials and community data. For the six commonest comorbidities we estimated all pairwise correlations using Bayesian multivariate probit models, conditioning on age and sex. Correlation estimates from trials with the same index condition were combined into a single estimate. We then compared the trial and community estimates for each index condition. Results Despite a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the community than in trials, the correlations between comorbidities were mostly similar in both settings. On comparing correlations between the community and trials, 21% of correlations were stronger in the community, 10% were stronger in the trials and 68% were similar in both. In the community, 5% of correlations were negative, 21% were null, 56% were weakly positive and 18% were strongly positive. Equivalent results for the trials were 11%, 33%, 45% and 10% respectively. Conclusions Comorbidity correlations are generally similar in both the trials and community, providing some evidence for the reporting of comorbidity-specific findings from clinical trials.Peer reviewe

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. Peter Hanlon and colleagues conduct meta-analyses of individual participant data extracted from 120 randomised controlled trials to investigate whether comorbidity modifies treatment effects. Author summary Why was this study done? There is often uncertainty about how treatments for single conditions should be applied to people with 2 or more long-term conditions (multimorbidity). People with multimorbidity are underrepresented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, trials rarely report whether the efficacy of treatment differs by the number of additional long-term conditions (comorbidities) or in the presence of specific comorbidities. What did the researchers do and find? We analysed individual-participant data from 120 RCTs including 128,331 participants across 23 index conditions to assess whether the efficacy of treatment differed depending on the number of comorbidities or in the presence of any of the most common comorbidities. We found no evidence that treatment efficacy differed depending on the number of comorbidities, or by any specific comorbidities, for any of the index conditions and treatment comparisons included in this analysis. What do these findings mean? Within the range of comorbidities included within these trials, treatment effects did not vary by comorbidity. These findings can be used within evidence syntheses to estimate the likely overall benefit of treatments in the context of multimorbidity. These findings are limited by the fact that people with multiple comorbidities are underrepresented in trials, and those with the highest degree of comorbidity are often excluded

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 > 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)

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

BackgroundHealth-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 findingsIncluded 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 > 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.ConclusionsTreatment 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 registrationA prespecified protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018048202)