Generalisability of clinical trials in otitis media with effusion

Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review

Clinical studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are essential for generating evidence for clinical practice. However, generalizability is a long‐standing concern when applying trial results to real‐world patients. Generalizability assessment is thus important, nevertheless, not consistently practiced. We performed a systematic review to understand the practice of generalizability assessment. We identified 187 relevant articles and systematically organized these studies in a taxonomy with three dimensions: (i) data availability (i.e., before or after trial (a priori vs. a posteriori generalizability)); (ii) result outputs (i.e., score vs. nonscore); and (iii) populations of interest. We further reported disease areas, underrepresented subgroups, and types of data used to profile target populations. We observed an increasing trend of generalizability assessments, but < 30% of studies reported positive generalizability results. As a priori generalizability can be assessed using only study design information (primarily eligibility criteria), it gives investigators a golden opportunity to adjust the study design before the trial starts. Nevertheless, < 40% of the studies in our review assessed a priori generalizability. With the wide adoption of electronic health records systems, rich real‐world patient databases are increasingly available for generalizability assessment; however, informatics tools are lacking to support the adoption of generalizability assessment practice.

Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment.

PURPOSE

To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference.

METHODS

Database searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child).

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted.

CONCLUSIONS

Families often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.

Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unwanted drug effects that have considerable economic as well as clinical costs as they often lead to hospital admission, prolongation of hospital stay and emergency department visits. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the main premarketing methods used to detect and quantify ADRs but these have several limitations, such as limited study sample size and limited heterogeneity due to the exclusion of the frailest patients. In addition, ADRs due to inappropriate medication use occur often in the real world of clinical practice but not in RCTs. Postmarketing drug safety monitoring through pharmacovigilance activities, including mining of spontaneous reporting and carrying out observational prospective cohort or retrospective database studies, allow longer follow-up periods of patients with a much wider range of characteristics, providing valuable means for ADR detection, quantification and where possible reduction, reducing healthcare costs in the process. Overall, pharmacovigilance is aimed at identifying drug safety signals as early as possible, thus minimizing potential clinical and economic consequences of ADRs. The goal of this review is to explore the epidemiology and the costs of ADRs in routine care.

Serous otitis media in the 20th and 21st centuries: evolving views and treatments

CONCLUSIONS

The historical study of serous otitis media (SOM) demonstrates steps in recognition of the disease, shifts in prevalence, and relationships between the disease's affect and evolving economic bases of society.

OBJECTIVE

SOM, although noted in early Roman and Arabic medicine, was only identified as a distinct and significant pathology in the last half of the 20th century. This paper examines the development of understanding of SOM, and ways in which it has been cared for during the 20th and 21st centuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical literature from antiquity to the present was reviewed for mention of otological conditions that related to SOM. For this report, the primary source of each notation was examined.

RESULTS

The first part of the 20th century saw little change from earlier times in the recognition or treatment of SOM. Our current 21st century conceptualization and concern for SOM has come about from five advances: antibiotics, the rediscovery of the tympanostomy tube, the clinical use of middle ear impedance, the association of a history of otitis with linguistic deficiency, and recognition of the significance of transformation to a communication-based economy.

A technical infrastructure to conduct randomized database studies facilitated by a general practice research database

General practice research databases are increasingly used to study intended and unintended effects of treatments. However, confounding by indication remains a major problem. The randomized database study methodology has been proposed as a method to combine the strengths of observational database (generalizability) and the strength of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design (randomization). We developed an infrastructure that enables the execution of randomized database studies with treatment randomization facilitated by a general practice research database. The requirements posed by the methodology of randomized database studies were facilitated by software components. Our assessment showed that it is technically possible to conduct randomized trials in general practice according to the randomized database design. The infrastructure facilitated the conduct of randomized database studies in general practice but some practical difficulties and methodological issues remain. The technical infrastructure seems to be both promising and potentially feasible to facilitate future randomized database studies, although the methodology needs to be evaluated in more detail.

External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?"

In making treatment decisions, doctors and patients must take into account relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Relevance depends on external validity (or generalisability)--ie, whether the results can be reasonably applied to a definable group of patients in a particular clinical setting in routine practice. There is concern among clinicians that external validity is often poor, particularly for some pharmaceutical industry trials, a perception that has led to underuse of treatments that are effective. Yet researchers, funding agencies, ethics committees, the pharmaceutical industry, medical journals, and governmental regulators alike all neglect external validity, leaving clinicians to make judgments. However, reporting of the determinants of external validity in trial publications and systematic reviews is usually inadequate. This review discusses those determinants, presents a checklist for clinicians, and makes recommendations for greater consideration of external validity in the design and reporting of RCTs.

[Cost-efficiency analysis of treatment of otitis media with effusion in children]

Otitis media with effusion is a common disorder in children, associated to hearing loss and recurrent acute otitis media. It has three basic treatments: Spontaneous resolution, oral antibiotics and surgery including adenoidectomy and/or grommets insertion. Through a sensibility analysis on a theoretical group of 1000 patients our aim is to study the cost-effectiveness of the different therapeutic options, evaluating direct and indirect costs, and identifying the most efficient option (cost-effective). We analysed effectiveness and variable costs of each arm of the decision tree, considering initial and rescue treatments. As expected, effectiveness grows up to the most through treatment, including adenoidectomy and grommets insertion, from 92% to 98% of children treated. Nevertheless, unitary cost of each child treated also increases, from 302 to 401 euros; that is, choosing the most cost-effective treatment enables to save approximately 100 euros per child. But, fixed costs, which are much higher (600 euros per child), will not change, limiting our management resources.

Representativeness of trial populations: an example from a trial of adenotonsillectomy in children

OBJECTIVE

To compare demographic and disease-specific characteristics of children included in a trial of the effectiveness of adenotonsillectomy with those of children who, although eligible, were not randomized.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Characteristics were compared between (i) randomized children (n = 270); (ii) eligible children whose parents immediately decided not to participate (n = 243); and (iii) eligible children whose parents were informed about the trial by a member of the study team but did not give their informed consent for participation in the trial (n = 406).

RESULTS

Statistically significant but relatively small differences were observed between the groups. Notably. breathing difficulties at night and abnormal appearance of the tonsils were more prevalent among eligible children whose parents immediately refused participation in the trial than in the other two groups. In contrast, cervical lymphadenopathy and previous ENT surgery were less prevalent among eligible children whose parents immediately refused participation in the trial.

CONCLUSION

Few and relatively small differences were observed between randomized and eligible, non-randomized children. The trial population appears to be representative of the relevant patient domain, i.e. children currently undergoing adenotonsillectomy in The Netherlands.