Eligibility of emergency psychiatry patients for clinical trials studying depression

BACKGROUND

Differences often exist between people with depression who are eligible for clinical trials and those seen in clinical practice. The impact of exclusion criteria on eligibility has been previously reported for inpatients and outpatients, but has not been assessed for emergency psychiatry patients; a group that overlaps with inpatients and outpatients but also has important distinctives. Understanding the frequencies of commonly used exclusion criteria in this population could inform interpretation of existing data (generalizability) and highlight opportunities/needs for future trials.

METHODS

We reviewed 67 clinical trials studying depression using Qualitative Content Analysis to identify common and recurring exclusion criteria. We examined the frequency of these exclusion criteria among a clinical sample of emergency psychiatry patients.

RESULTS

Most clinical trials had exclusions for basic research requirements, age, symptom severity, psychosis, and substance use. Applying 9 commonly used exclusion criteria to the clinical population resulted in a 3.3 % eligibility rate (95 % CI 1.2 %-7.0 %). Exclusions for psychosis (85.1 % of trials), substance use (83.6 % of trials), and suicide risk (65.7 % of trials) would likely exclude 93 % of emergency psychiatry patients. The prevalence of psychosis, substance use, and suicide risk was much higher among emergency psychiatry patients than among previously studied populations.

LIMITATIONS

Some eligibility criteria could not be measured. The Qualitative Content Analysis consolidated similar exclusion criteria, losing potentially important nuances in wordings.

CONCLUSIONS

Exclusion criteria commonly used in contemporary clinical trials of depression limit generalizability to emergency psychiatry patients, due in large part to exclusions for psychosis, substance use, and suicide risk.

Laboratory Criteria for Exclusion and Readmission of Potentially Infectious Persons in Sensitive Settings in the Age of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests: Report of a Multidisciplinary Workgroup

Culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) are increasingly used for clinical diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases such as salmonellosis, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli disease, and shigellosis because of their speed, convenience, and generally high-performance characteristics. These tests are also used to screen potentially infectious asymptomatic persons during outbreak investigations in sensitive settings such as childcare, food service, and healthcare. However, only limited performance data are available for CIDTs used on specimens from asymptomatic persons. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) and Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) convened a workgroup to examine the available scientific data to inform interim decision-making related to exclusion and readmission criteria for potentially infectious persons in sensitive settings, the risks and benefits of different testing strategies, and to identify knowledge gaps for further research. This is the report on the Workgroup findings.

A review of research on eligibility criteria for clinical trials

The purpose of this paper is to systematically sort out and analyze the cutting-edge research on the eligibility criteria of clinical trials. Eligibility criteria are important prerequisites for the success of clinical trials. It directly affects the final results of the clinical trials. Inappropriate eligibility criteria will lead to insufficient recruitment, which is an important reason for the eventual failure of many clinical trials. We have investigated the research status of eligibility criteria for clinical trials on academic platforms such as arXiv and NIH. We have classified and sorted out all the papers we found, so that readers can understand the frontier research in this field. Eligibility criteria are the most important part of a clinical trial study. The ultimate goal of research in this field is to formulate more scientific and reasonable eligibility criteria and speed up the clinical trial process. The global research on the eligibility criteria of clinical trials is mainly divided into four main aspects: natural language processing, patient pre-screening, standard evaluation, and clinical trial query. Compared with the past, people are now using new technologies to study eligibility criteria from a new perspective (big data). In the research process, complex disease concepts, how to choose a suitable dataset, how to prove the validity and scientific of the research results, are challenges faced by researchers (especially for computer-related researchers). Future research will focus on the selection and improvement of artificial intelligence algorithms related to clinical trials and related practical applications such as databases, knowledge graphs, and dictionaries.

Heterogeneity of BCG unresponsive bladder cancer clinical trials limits patients' access to novel therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

Effective therapies for patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer that recurs or progresses after Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) are lacking. This unmet need is the focus of many drug development efforts, reflected in many completed/ongoing/planned clinical trials for patients with BCG unresponsive bladder cancer. Though BCG unresponsive criteria are well defined, enrollment criteria are variable such that, even at centers with several open trials in this space, a given patient with BCG unresponsive bladder cancer might not qualify for any. To understand the scope of this dilemma, we systematically analyzed enrollment criteria for all BCG unresponsive protocols registered on ClinicalTrials.gov to quantify heterogeneity in enrollment criteria and to determine what proportion of trials were inclusive to patients meeting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) BCG unresponsive criteria.

METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov search tool was queried for relevant trials using the terms "bladder cancer" "nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer" and "BCG". Previously published review articles were cross-referenced to ensure that search results were comprehensive. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the resulting 31 protocols pertaining to distinct categories such as performance status, laboratory parameters, co-morbidities, active medications, and prior therapies were recorded. Based on enrollment criteria, the trial was assessed as fully inclusive or not to patients considered to be BCG unresponsive by the 2018 FDA criteria.

RESULTS

Of 31 trials, 15 (48%) had inclusion/exclusion criteria that were fully consistent with (inclusive of patients that met) the BCG unresponsive bladder cancer definition. 18 (58%) of trials excluded patients with a history of prior pelvic radiation therapy. 14 (45%) of trials excluded patients with ECOG performance status >2 (or Karnofsky Performance Status equivalent). The most common disease specific exclusion for patients with BCG unresponsive bladder cancer was a requirement for stage Tis (carcinoma in situ, CIS), which pertained to 7 (23%) of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Enrollment criteria for patients with BCG unresponsive bladder cancer are highly variable. Over half of trials evaluated do not meet stringent criteria for this disease state based upon treatment history and cancer staging requirements. For patients who desire to enroll in clinical trials, this restricts access to novel agents. For bladder cancer treating physicians and regulatory bodies, this also hinders comparisons across agents.

Eligibility criteria in clinical trials in breast cancer: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer type in women. The purpose of this study was to assess the eligibility criteria in recent clinical trials in BC, especially those that can limit the enrollment of older patients as well as those with comorbidities and poor performance status.

METHODS

Data on clinical trials in BC were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Co-primary outcomes were proportions of trials with different types of the eligibility criteria. Associations between trial characteristics and the presence of certain types of these criteria (binary variable) were determined with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 522 trials of systemic anticancer treatments started between 2020 and 2022. Upper age limits, strict exclusion criteria pertaining to comorbidities, and those referring to inadequate performance status of the patient were used in 204 (39%), 404 (77%), and 360 (69%) trials, respectively. Overall, 493 trials (94%) had at least one of these criteria. The odds of the presence of each type of the exclusion criteria were significantly associated with investigational site location and trial phase. We also showed that the odds of the upper age limits and the exclusion criteria involving the performance status were significantly higher in the cohort of recent trials compared with cohort of 309 trials started between 2010 and 2012 (39% vs 19% and 69% vs 46%, respectively; p < 0.001 for univariate and multivariate analysis in both comparisons). The proportion of trials with strict exclusion criteria was comparable between the two cohorts (p > 0.05). Only three of recent trials (1%) enrolled solely patients aged 65 or 70 and older.

CONCLUSIONS

Many recent clinical trials in BC exclude large groups of patients, especially older adults, individuals with different comorbidities, and those with poor performance status. Careful modification of some of the eligibility criteria in these trials should be considered to allow investigators to assess the benefits and harms of investigational treatments in participants with characteristics typically encountered in clinical practice.

Testing the "RCT augmentation" methodology: A trial simulation study to guide the broadening of trials eligibility criteria and inform on effectiveness

Background

Exclusion criteria that are treatment effect modifiers (TEM) decrease RCTs results generalisability and the potentials of effectiveness estimation. In "augmented RCTs", a small proportion of otherwise-excluded patients are included to allow for effectiveness estimation. In Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) RCTs, older age and comorbidity are common exclusion criteria, while also TEM. We simulated HL RCTs augmented with age or comorbidity, and explored in each scenario the impact of augmentation on effectiveness estimation accuracy.

Methods

Simulated data with a population of HL individuals initiating drug A or B was generated. There were drug-age and drug-comorbidity interactions in the simulated data, with a greater magnitude of the former compared to the latter. Multiple augmented RCTs were simulated by randomly selecting patients with increasing proportions of older, or comorbid patients. Treatment effect size was expressed using the between-group Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) difference at 3 years. For each augmentation proportion, a model estimating the "real-world" treatment effect (effectiveness) was fitted and the estimation error measured (Root Mean Square Error, RMSE).

Results

In simulated RCTs including none (0%), or the real-world proportion (30%) of older patients, the interquartile range of RMST difference was 0.4-0.5 years and 0.2-0.3 years, respectively, and RMSE were 0.198 years (highest possible error) and 0.056 years (lowest), respectively. Augmenting RCTs with 5% older patients decreased estimation error substantially (RMSE = 0.076 years). Augmentation with comorbid patients proved less useful for effectiveness estimation.

Conclusion

In augmented RCTs aiming to inform the effectiveness of drugs, augmentation should concern in priority those exclusion criteria of suspected important TEM magnitude, so as to minimie the proportion of augmentation necessary for good effectiveness estimations.

A literature review of the impact of exclusion criteria on generalizability of clinical trial findings to patients with chronic pain

The ability of clinical trials to inform the care of chronic pain may be limited if only an unrepresentative subset of patients are allowed to enroll. We summarize and report new insights on published studies that report on how trial exclusions affect the generalizability of their results. We conducted a PubMed search on the following terms: (("eligibility criteria" AND generalizability) OR ("exclusion criteria" AND generalizability) OR "exclusion criteria"[ti] OR "eligibility criteria"[ti]) AND pain. We only considered studies relevant if they analyzed data on (1) the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria or (2) the impact of exclusion criteria on sample representativeness or study results. The 4 articles that were identified reported differences in patients who were included and excluded in different clinical trials: excluded patients were older, less likely to have a paid job, had more functional limitations at baseline, and used strong opioids more often. The clinical significance of these differences remains unclear. The pain medicine literature has very few published studies on the prevalence and impact of exclusion criteria, and the outcomes of excluded patients are rarely tracked. The frequent use of psychosocial exclusions is especially compromising to generalizability because chronic pain commonly co-occurs with psychiatric comorbidities. Inclusion of more representative patients in research samples can reduce recruitment barriers and broaden the generalizability of findings in patients with chronic pain. We also call for more studies that examine the use of exclusion criteria in chronic pain trials to better understand their implications.

Exclusion criteria of breast cancer clinical trial protocols: a descriptive analysis

PURPOSE

3-8% of US adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial due to various barriers to enrollment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines.

METHODS

This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2004 and 2020. Exclusion criteria were abstracted using OnCore and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values included liver function tests and hematologic labs. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and prior cancer history. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from diagnosis or exacerbation-free.

RESULTS

102 protocols were eligible. Among liver laboratory values, bilirubin (78%) was included in most protocols ranging from institutional upper limit of normal (ULN) (9%) to 3xULN (2%), with 1.5xULN (56%) being most common. Similar variability was observed in alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count ranging from 500 μL (1%) to 1800 μL (1%), with 1500 μL (64%) being most common. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%), and a prior cancer (66%). The allowable timeframe varied between protocols for cardiovascular disease and prior cancer.

CONCLUSION

Substantial heterogeneity was observed across laboratory values and comorbid variables among protocols. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.

Clinical trial recruiters' experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed.

METHODS

Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.

Eligibility for clinical trials is unsatisfactory for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, even at a tertiary referral center

Participation in clinical trials may allow patients with MDS to gain access to therapies not otherwise available. However, access is limited by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, reflecting academic or regulatory questions addressed by the respective studies. We performed a simulation in order to estimate the average proportion of MDS patients eligible for participation in a clinical trial. The simulation drew upon 1809 patients in the Düsseldorf MDS Registry whose clinical data allowed eligibility screening for a wide range of clinical trials. This cohort was assumed to be alive and available for study participation. The simulation also posited that all MDS trials (n = 47) conducted in our center between 1987 and 2016 were open for recruitment. In addition, study activities in the year 2016 were analyzed to determine the proportion of patients eligible for at least one of the 9 MDS trials open at that time. On average, each clinical trial was suitable for about 18 % of patients in the simulation cohort. Conversely, 34 % of the patients were eligible for at least one of the 9 clinical studies in 2016. Inclusion/exclusion criteria of studies initiated by the pharmaceutical industry excluded more than twice the fraction of patients compared with investigator initiated trials (potential inclusion of 10 % vs. 21 %, respectively). Karyotype (average exclusion rate 58 %), comorbidities (40 %), and prior therapies (55 %) were the main reasons for exclusion. We suggest that in- and exclusion criteria should be less restrictive, in order to meet the needs of the real-life population of elderly MDS patients.

Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count

BACKGROUND

Accepted systematic review (SR) methodology requires citation screening by two reviewers to maximise retrieval of eligible studies. We hypothesized that records could be excluded by a single reviewer without loss of sensitivity in two conditions; the record was ineligible for multiple reasons, or the record was ineligible for one or more specific reasons that could be reliably assessed.

METHODS

Twenty-four SRs performed at CHEO, a pediatric health care and research centre in Ottawa, Canada, were divided into derivation and validation sets. Exclusion criteria during abstract screening were sorted into 11 specific categories, with loss in sensitivity determined by individual category and by number of exclusion criteria endorsed. Five single reviewer algorithms that combined individual categories and multiple exclusion criteria were then tested on the derivation and validation sets, with success defined a priori as less than 5% loss of sensitivity.

RESULTS

The 24 SRs included 930 eligible and 27390 ineligible citations. The reviews were mostly focused on pediatrics (70.8%, N=17/24), but covered various specialties. Using a single reviewer to exclude any citation led to an average loss of sensitivity of 8.6% (95%CI, 6.0-12.1%). Excluding citations with ≥2 exclusion criteria led to 1.2% average loss of sensitivity (95%CI, 0.5-3.1%). Five specific exclusion criteria performed with perfect sensitivity: conference abstract, ineligible age group, case report/series, not human research, and review article. In the derivation set, the five algorithms achieved a loss of sensitivity ranging from 0.0 to 1.9% and work-saved ranging from 14.8 to 39.1%. In the validation set, the loss of sensitivity for all 5 algorithms remained below 2.6%, with work-saved between 10.5% and 48.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that targeted application of single-reviewer screening, considering both type and number of exclusion criteria, could retain sensitivity and significantly decrease workload. Further research is required to investigate the potential for combining this approach with crowdsourcing or machine learning methodologies.

Eligibility of real-world patients with metastatic breast cancer for clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

The results of clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are generalized to real-world patients. This study determines the proportion of real-world patients who would be eligible for clinical trials and compares outcomes in eligible versus ineligible patients.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with MBC from 2004 to 2015 in a large Canadian province were included. Patients with one of the following criteria were considered ineligible: the presence of comorbid conditions (anemia, uncontrolled diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, and kidney disease) or a history of immunosuppression or prior malignancy. The likelihood of receiving cancer therapy was analysed using logistic regression models and factors affecting overall survival (OS) were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 1585 patients with MBC were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years. Of these, 512 (32.3%) patients were deemed ineligible in whom the two most common reasons for ineligibility were renal dysfunction (17.2%), and previous immunosuppression (7.8%). In the real world, ineligible patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy (29.5% vs 45.8%; P < 0.001) but not radiation treatment (7.6% vs 9.6%; P = 0.196) or hormonal therapy (57.6% vs 60.6%; P = 0.261). The 5-year OS of ineligible patients who received systemic therapy in the real-world was significantly better than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being ineligible for clinical trials based on common eligibility criteria, many real-world patients receive systemic treatment and derive possible benefit. Broadening of inclusion criteria in clinical trials will enhance the representation of real-world patients and increase the generalizability of results.

Obstetrics risk Assessment: Evaluation of selection criteria for vaccine research studies in pregnant women

Vaccines designed for use in pregnancy and vaccine trials specifically involving pregnant women are rapidly expanding. One of the key challenges in designing maternal immunization trials is that developing exclusion criteria requires understanding and quantifying the background risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the pregnancy being studied, which can occur independent of any intervention and be unrelated to vaccine administration. The Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in Pregnancy (GAIA) project has developed and published case definitions and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and evaluation of maternal immunization safety in trials involving pregnant women. Complementing this work, we sought to understand how to best assess obstetric risk of adverse outcomes and differentiate it from the assessment of vaccine safety. Quantification of obstetric risk is based on prior and current obstetric, and maternal medical history. We developed a step-wise approach to evaluate and quantify obstetric and maternal risk factors in pregnancy based on review of published literature and guidelines, and critically assessed these factors in the context of designing inclusion and exclusion criteria for maternal vaccine studies. We anticipate this risk assessment evaluation may assist clinical trialists with study design decisions, including selection of exclusion criteria for vaccine trials involving pregnant women, consideration of sub-group classification, such as high or low risk subjects, or schedule considerations, such as preferred trimester of gestation for an intervention during pregnancy. Additionally, this tool may be utilized in data stratification at time of study analyses.

Have Treatment Studies of Depression Become Even Less Generalizable? Applying the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Placebo-Controlled Antidepressant Efficacy Trials Published over 20 Years to a Clinical Sample

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are amongst the most frequently prescribed medications. More than a decade ago, our clinical research group applied a prototypic set of inclusion/exclusion criteria used in an antidepressant efficacy trial (AET) to patients presenting for treatment in our outpatient practice and found that most patients would not qualify for the trial. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we apply the psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in 158 placebo-controlled studies to a large sample of depressed patients who presented for outpatient treatment to determine the range and extent of the representativeness of samples treated in AETs and whether this has changed over time.

METHOD

We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 158 AETs to 1,271 patients presenting to an outpatient practice who received a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The patients underwent a thorough diagnostic evaluation.

RESULTS

Across all 158 studies, the percentage of patients that would have been excluded ranged from 44.4 to 99.8% (mean = 86.1%). The percentage of patients that would have been excluded was significantly higher in the studies published in 2010 through 2014 compared to the studies published from 1995 to 2009 (91.4 vs. 83.8%, t(156) = 3.74, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a minority of depressed patients seen in clinical practice are likely to be eligible for most AETs. The generalizability of AETs has decreased over time. It is unclear how generalizable the results of AETs are to patients treated in real-world clinical practice.

Applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria in placebo-controlled studies to a clinical sample: A comparison of medications

BACKGROUND

We previously compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the studies of vortioxetine to other antidepressants and found that they were significantly more restrictive in the vortioxetine studies. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the differences in psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the studies of some antidepressants resulted in differences in generalizability to clinical samples.

METHODS

We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 161 antidepressant efficacy trials to 1,271 patients presenting to an outpatient practice who received a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The patients underwent a thorough diagnostic evaluation. We compared the percentage of patients that would be excluded in studies of different medications.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients that would have been excluded was significantly higher in the vortioxetine studies than other medications. For the 15 medications that were included in at least 5 trials, we computed the mean percentage of patients that would be excluded. The values ranged from 76.0% (for fluoxetine) to 99.1% (for quetiapine).

LIMITATIONS

While our calculations were based on the exclusion criteria stated in the published articles, we have no way of knowing how these criteria were actually applied.

CONCLUSION

Studies of different medications vary in how representative the samples are of patients in clinical practice. The variability in the inclusion/exclusion criteria used to select samples for antidepressant efficacy trials, and the evidence that studies of different medications vary in their generalizability, makes it more difficult to interpret network analyses comparing the relative efficacy of medications.

QTc Interval-Prolonging Medications Among Patients With Lung Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trial Eligibility and Clinical Care

BACKGROUND

Concomitant medication use, including agents that prolong the corrected QT (QTc) interval, can result in the exclusion of patients with cancer from clinical trials. To estimate the potential effects on accrual, we determined the prevalence of QTc-prolonging medication prescriptions in a national patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified adult patients in the Veterans Affairs system with a diagnosis of lung cancer from 2003 to 2016. The use of QTc interval-prolonging medications and risk category were obtained from CredibleMeds. We calculated the prevalence of prescriptions for QTc-prolonging medications with a known or possible risk of torsade de pointes in the 3 months up to and including the date of cancer diagnosis. The rates across patient groups were compared using χ² test.

RESULTS

A total of 280,068 patients were included in the present study. The mean age was 70 years, 98% were male, and 72% were white. Overall, 28.4% had been prescribed a QTc-prolonging medication, and 7.3% had been prescribed ≥2 in the 3 months before the cancer diagnosis. The most commonly prescribed QTc-prolonging medications were antimicrobial agents (14.0%), psychiatric agents (10.2%), antiemetic agents (2.6%), and cardiac medications (1.7%). Excluding the antimicrobial agents, 18.4% of the patients had been prescribed a QTc-prolonging medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of individuals with lung cancer will be prescribed QTc-prolonging medications. These prescriptions can limit patients' eligibility for clinical trials and complicate the administration of standard cancer therapies. Further research into the actual clinical risks and optimal management of QTc-prolonging medications in cancer populations is warranted.

Brain metastasis as exclusion criteria in clinical trials involving extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research submitted recommendations to the FDA to reduce barriers in clinical trial participation. They proposed the removal of several specific exclusion criteria, including brain metastasis. Clinical trials involving small cell lung cancer (SCLC) have varying exclusion criteria regarding brain metastasis.

METHODS

We completed an online search of clinicaltrials.gov for the query "SCLC, extensive stage." The trials were classified into a group of strict exclusion, allowed only if treated, allowed without treatment, or undefined. Relationships between status of brain metastasis in exclusion criteria and study characteristics (trial status, trial design, sponsor, location, and treatment groups) were investigated by Chi-squared test. The trends of exclusion status were investigated by a comparison against the variable time.

RESULTS

Of the 204 eligible trials, 32 strictly excluded any form or history of CNS metastases, 129 allowed patients that are undergoing or have undergone CNS-specific therapy, 9 allowed patients without any CNS-specific therapy, and 34 did not mention any criteria involving CNS metastases. Studies conducted outside the United States and with single systemic therapy were associated with strict exclusion of brain metastasis (p = 0.026 and 0.039, respectively). The proportion of clinical trials with strict exclusion has remained around 15% for the past few decades.

CONCLUSION

Non-US and single systemic therapy studies are more commonly associated with strict exclusion of brain metastasis in ES-SCLC trials. The strict exclusion of brain metastases in clinical trials has remained relatively constant for the past few decades.

Investigation into the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on cardiac pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Studies investigating the therapeutic applications of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of age-related neurodegenerative disease have been promising. However, exclusion criteria for these studies invariably disqualify patients implanted with internal cardiac pacemakers, citing safety concerns. Because the majority of cardiac pacemaker implantees are over 65, this criterion may limit candidacy for tDCS based research and/or treatment of age-related neurodegenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We will test the hypothesis that tDCS impacts pacemaker function. Strong electrical potentials, such as those generated by external defibrillators (∼500 V, ∼10 A), are known to occasionally damage pacemaker circuitry and software, but it seems unlikely tDCS would damage a pacemaker because it involves about 1/200th the energy (∼12 V, ∼2 mA) of an external defibrillator.

METHODS

We delivered tDCS to seven participants (ages 70-92) with bipolar non-dependent pacemakers and subsequently collected data from the internal memory of the pacemakers to assess the tDCS signal detection, as well as alterations in mode switches, impedance levels, and pacing. Subsequently, similar assessments were carried out in participants who were pacemaker-dependent (ages 89-91).

RESULTS

After a review of the recordings, it was found that tDCS had no impact on the non-dependant, as well as the dependent, pacemakers. There were zero mode switches nor any impact on impedance levels.

CONCLUSION

Results in this small series of cases found no evidence that tDCS interferes with the function of the pacemakers and suggests tDCS can be delivered to patients equipped with a cardiac pacemaker. Further studies are needed to generalize these results to other pacemakers.

Effect of Reasons for Screen Failure on Subsequent Treatment Outcomes in Cancer Patients Assessed for Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

The cancer research community increasingly question the rigidity of eligibility criteria in clinical trials. Common reasons for "screen failure" (RFSF) are well documented; however, their effect on subsequent standard therapy (SST) and outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated patients aged ≥18 years with solid malignancy who were listed as ineligible on a screening log between February 2011 and March 2018. Patients screen-failed for biomarker results or incorrect cancer stage/prior treatment profile were excluded. Data were collected from electronic hospital records, including demographics, cancer history, RFSF, subsequent therapy, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 217 patients were eligible. The most common histologies were lung (28%), melanoma, colon, and pancreatic (all 11%); 90% were metastatic. The most common RFSF were rapid disease progression (PD; 16%), performance status (PS) ≥2 (12%), and abnormal liver function tests (aLFT; 12%). After screen failure, 129/217 (59%) had SST; 9 were dose-reduced. Treatment-naïve or phase III trial-ineligible patients were more likely to receive SST than those pre-treated or phase I trial-ineligible (72/104 vs. 52/113, p = 0.0006; 71/109 vs. 15/42, p = 0.00013), respectively. RFSF stabilised/improved in 104/217 (48%); the main RFSF was co-morbidity (19/104). The most common RFSF to deteriorate were rapid PD (27/72), PS ≥2 (20/72), and aLFT with liver metastases (LM; 13/72).

CONCLUSIONS

RFSF related to organ function rarely deteriorate unless directly involved with underlying malignancy. Most RFSF do not prevent patients from having SST, nor increase dose reductions, especially in treatment-naïve/phase III trial-ineligible patients. Those with RFSF of poor PS, rapid PD, and aLFT from LM are less suitable for SST. Careful broadening of trial eligibility is warranted.

Predictors of thrombolysis in the telestroke and non telestroke settings for hypertensive acute ischemic stroke patients

BACKGROUND

In acute ischemic stroke patients, telestroke technology provides sustainable approaches to improve the use of thrombolysis therapy. How this is achieved as it relates to inclusion or exclusion of clinical risk factors for thrombolysis is not fully understood. We investigated this in a population of hypertensive stroke patients.

METHODS

Structured data from a regional stroke registry that contained telestroke and non telestroke patients with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke with history of hypertension were collected between January 2014 and June 2016. Clinical risk factors associated with inclusion or exclusion for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) in the telestroke and non telestroke were identified using multiple regression analysis. Associations between variables and rtPA in the regression models were determined using variance inflation factors while the fitness of each model was determined using the ROC curve to predict the power of each logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The non telestroke admitted more patients (62% vs 38%), when compared with the telestroke. Although the telestroke admitted fewer patients, it excluded 11% and administered thrombolysis therapy to 89% of stroke patients with hypertension. In the non telestroke group, adjusted odd ratios showed significant associations of NIH stroke scale score (OR = 1.059, 95% CI, 1.025-1.093, P < 0.001) and coronary artery disease (OR = 2.003, 95% CI, 1.16-3.457, P = 0.013) with inclusion, while increasing age (OR = 0.979, 95% CI, 0.961-0.996, P = 0.017), higher INR (OR = 0.146, 95% CI, 0.032-0.665, P = 0.013), history of previous stroke (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.223-0.68, P = 0.001), and renal insufficiency (OR = 0.153, 95% CI, 0.046-0.508, P = 0.002) were associated with rtPA exclusion. In the telestroke, only direct admission to the telestroke was associated with rtPA administration, (OR = 4.083, 95% CI, 1.322-12.611, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

The direct admission of hypertensive stroke patients to the telestroke network was the only factor associated with inclusion for thrombolysis therapy even after adjustment for baseline variables. The telestroke technology provides less restrictive criteria for clinical risk factors associated with the inclusion of hypertensive stroke patients for thrombolysis.

Single screen of citations with excluded terms: an approach to citation screening in systematic reviews

Citation screening during the systematic review process can be time-consuming due to the exponentially increasing amount of research. This letter describes an approach to expediting the process by single screening citations that include terms in the abstract and/or keywords related to the exclusion criteria of the systematic review to quickly reject studies with a high likelihood of being excluded from the systematic review. This method can potentially improve the efficiency of the citation screening process while maintaining the quality of the systematic review; however, future research is needed to further validate this approach.

Are studies of psychotherapies for depression more or less generalizable than studies of antidepressants?

BACKGROUND

The generalizability of findings from studies exploring the efficacy of psychotherapy and antidepressants has been called into question in part because studies exclude many patients. Despite this, the frequency with which psychotherapy and antidepressant studies use specific inclusion and exclusion criteria has never been compared. We explored the exclusion criteria used in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy studies from 1995 to 2014.

METHOD

Systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults with either antidepressants (vs. placebos) or psychotherapy (vs. placebos, treatments as usual, or other controls).

RESULTS

Most psychotherapy (81%) and antidepressant (100%) trials excluded patients with milder symptoms as well as patients with elevated suicidal risk (56-75%), psychotic symptoms (84-88%), or substance misuse (75-81%). Psychotherapy studies were less likely to exclude patients on the basis of brief episode duration (0% vs. 48%) and co-morbid Axis I disorders (6% vs. 27%). However, psychotherapy studies excluded patients with more severe symptoms more frequently (38%) than antidepressant studies (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, psychotherapy studies appear somewhat more inclusive than antidepressant studies. On average, antidepressant studies appear to target patients with more chronic and severe, as well as more purely depressive presentations.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in non-specific low back pain trials: a review of randomised controlled trials published between 2006 and 2012

Background

Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP.

Methods

A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category.

Results

We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n = 8, 5%), while low back pain (n = 150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n = 27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n = 84, 50%), pregnancy (n = 81, 48%), malignancy (n = 78, 46%), trauma (n = 63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n = 58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n = 44, 26%), neurological signs (n = 34, 20%) or disc herniation (n = 30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n = 35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n = 31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n = 27, 16%).

Conclusion

RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-2034-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Results of Stricter Inclusion Criteria in an Immunomagnetic Detection Study of Micrometastatic Cells in Bone Marrow of Uveal Melanoma Patients - Relevance for Dormancy

Approximately 50% of uveal melanoma patients develop metastases. We want to evaluate the effect of stricter criteria on our data from our previous study correlating survival and bone marrow (BM) micrometastasis results using our immunomagnetic separation (IMS) method. Mononuclear cell fractions (MNC) isolated from BM were examined for tumour cells and the patients were classified as BM positive (BM+) or BM negative (BM-). The study originally included 328 consecutive patients with uveal melanoma from 1997 to 2006. The cohort was limited to 217 patients when we introduced cyto- or histopathological verification of melanoma cells in the patient as a main new criterion for inclusion. Tumour cells were found in BM-samples in 38.7% (95% CI, 32-45) at enrolment. Until the latest work-up 43.8% (95% CI, 38-50) of patients had developed melanoma metastases. After a minimum follow-up time of 8.5 years, 60.4% (95% CI, 54-66) of patients had died. The causes were: melanoma metastases 69.5%, another type of cancer 5.4% and non-cancerous causes 19.5%. Overall median survival was shorter for the BM- patients (11.3 years) (95% CI, 10-12) compared to the BM+ (16.5 years) (95% CI, 12-14), p = 0.04, log rank test. All-cause mortality and specific melanoma mortality estimated after 12 year follow-up showed a highly significant difference comparing BM- and BM+, p = 0.010 and p = 0,017, respectively. IMS yields a high fraction of BM+ samples due to micrometastasis at diagnosis and these cells appear to have a positive prognostic impact strengthening our previous report. The late recurrences support the concept of tumour dormancy.

Thoracic Oncology Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria and Requirements Continue to Increase in Number and Complexity

INTRODUCTION

Eligibility criteria and screening procedures are designed to optimize the scientific yield and maximize the safety of clinical trials. However, they may also heighten trial complexity, hinder enrollment, decrease generalizability, and increase costs. We analyzed the types and number of eligibility criteria and screening procedures among thoracic oncology clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

METHODS

We identified trials and obtained protocols from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group website. Eligibility criteria were grouped and categorized as comorbidity (classified by organ system), administrative requirements, prior treatment, and measurable disease requirements. Associations between trial characteristics and eligibility criteria were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

A total of 74 lung cancer trials activated in 1986-2016 were identified. The total number of eligibility criteria was associated with trial principal therapy (a median of nine for surgical, 18 for radiation, and 20 for medical therapy [p = 0.02]), trial primary end point (a median of 20 for overall survival, 28 for progression-free survival, and 17 for other [p = 0.001]), number of therapies (p = 0.05), and year of activation (a median of 16 for 1986-1995, 19 for 1996-2005, and 27 for 2006-2016 [P < 0.001]). The increase in trial eligibility requirements over time was limited to medical therapy trials. Over time, there was also an increase in blood test screening procedures (p = 0.05) but not in imaging, cardiac assessment, or pulmonary function screening procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of eligibility criteria and screening procedures in medical therapy lung cancer clinical trials continues to rise. Continued efforts to simplify protocol eligibility and procedures are warranted to promote trial adherence, enrollment, completion, and generalizability.

Quantification of the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials Supporting Clinical Care Guidelines: The Case of Thromboprophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines are based on the results of several randomized controlled trials. However, due to the stringent exclusion criteria of these trials, their external validity may be low. We aimed to evaluate the external validity of the randomized controlled trials cited in the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, chart-review study of a random sample of patients admitted between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 to the Internal Medicine ward of a large Canadian teaching university hospital. We identified the proportion of our population presenting exclusion criteria used in the randomized controlled trials cited in support of clinical care guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in the medical setting.

RESULTS

Nine trials were identified for a total of 28,793 included patients following 23 distinct exclusion criteria. We included 429 patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile ratio 51-77 years), and 236 (55%) were males. Of those not already anticoagulated at admission (n = 351), between 26% and 67% (weighted average, 51%) of our population presented at least one exclusion criterion, making them ineligible to be enrolled in randomized controlled trials. When restricting our population to patients with an indication for thromboprophylaxis based on a Padua risk score at admission ≥4, 21% to 76% (weighted average 55%) were ineligible to be enrolled in individual trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cross-sectional study illustrates that the external validity of randomized controlled trials cited in the guidelines was low in our population, and lower when applying the risk-stratification tool recommended by guidelines. This can bias the clinicians toward treating patients that were not represented in the supporting evidence.

Variability in the substance use disorder exclusion criterion in antidepressant efficacy trials

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders are the most commonly excluded psychiatric disorder in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs). In a recent review of AETs we noticed variability in the definition of the substance use disorder exclusion criterion. In the present report we examined in greater detail the variability in defining the substance use disorder exclusion criterion, the potential impact of this variability on excluding patients from an AET, and whether the definition of the criterion has changed in the past 20 years.

METHODS

We identified 170 AETs published during the past 20 years and compared the studies published during the past 5 years (n=56) to the studies published during the 15 prior years (n=114).

RESULTS

Substance abuse was more frequently used as an exclusion criterion than substance dependence. Six time frames have been used as the basis of exclusion, the most frequent being the past 12 months. The time frame had a greater impact on the number of patients who would be excluded than the abuse/dependence distinction. The definition of the substance use exclusion criterion was no different in the studies of the past 5 years compared to the prior 15 years.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of the present analysis is that it was based on published placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

Studies varied in whether abuse or dependence was the basis of exclusion, whether alcohol or illicit drugs or both were the basis of exclusion, and the time frame of the disorders' presence. We raise the question of whether the routine exclusion of patients with a substance use disorder should be reflected in a product's label.

A critical analysis of factors leading to next-day discharge in ambulatory surgery patients

INTRODUCTION

Ambulatory surgery (AS) is becoming the rule. However, some patients do not have AS despite correct indications. The purpose of this retrospective study of prospectively collected data was to analyze why these patients do not have AS and evaluate their immediate post-operative course, in order to broaden the indications for AS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January and December 2013, the reasons why patients who had appropriate indications for ambulatory cholecystectomy or hernia repair but later had conventional hospital management were recorded. The primary endpoint was early post-operative morbidity. Secondary endpoints were demographic, surgical, anesthetic, post-operative data as well as analysis of criteria leading to conventional hospital stay.

RESULTS

Among 410 patients undergoing surgery for accepted AS indications, 158 (39%) did not have AS; 113 out of these patients (72%) were discharged the day following surgery. Of the 69 patients (43.6%) who did not have AS for medical reasons (50 by the surgeon's decision alone), 60 patients could have undergone AS since their outcome was uneventful in 96% of cases; only three patients (2.5%) had post-operative complications.

CONCLUSION

The AS rate could have been increased by 15% through better surgical and anesthetic collaboration.

Attenuation of a select agent-excluded Burkholderia pseudomallei capsule mutant in hamsters

Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Tier 1 select agent and potential bioweapon. Given it is potential to cause a lethal respiratory disease, research with fully virulent B. pseudomallei is conducted in Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory spaces. The logistical, financial, and administrative burden of Tier 1 select agent BSL-3 research has created an interest in mitigating such burdens through the use of either attenuated B. pseudomallei strains at BSL-2, or research with surrogate species, such as Burkholderia thailandensis. Previously, attenuated B. pseudomallei auxotroph mutants (asd and purM) have been approved for exclusion from select agent requirements, allowing for in vitro studies to be conducted at BSL-2. Acapsular B. pseudomallei mutants are known to be strongly attenuated in a variety of animal models, and yet acapsular B. pseudomallei mutants do not require nutritional supplementation, and can be studied within cultured macrophages, performing phenotypically similarly to parent strains. We demonstrate that the loss of a 30.8 kb region of the wcb capsule operon allows for a dramatic >4.46 log attenuation in a hamster intraperitoneal infection model, and report that this strain, JW270, has met criteria for exclusion from select agent requirements.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria in placebo-controlled studies of vortioxetine: Comparison to other antidepressants and implications for product labeling

BACKGROUND

We recently conducted a comprehensive review of the psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in 170 placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) published during the past 20 years and found that the criteria of more recent studies were significantly more restrictive than prior studies. Vortioxetine is the most recently approved medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the vortioxetine studies to the criteria used in other AETs, and discuss the broader issue of the generalizability of AETs and the implications this might have for the labeling of antidepressants receiving FDA approval.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of placebo-controlled AETs published from January, 1995 through December, 2014. We identified 170 AETs published during this 20 year period and compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the 12 studies of vortioxetine to those used in the nonvortioxetine studies. A second analysis compared vortioxetine to the 3 antidepressants most recently approved prior to vortioxetine (desvenlafaxine, levomilnacipran extended release, vilazodone).

RESULTS

Compared to the nonvortioxetine AETs, the vortioxetine studies significantly more often excluded patients with any comorbid Axis I disorder (p<.001) and more often required the current depressive episode to be longer than the DSM minimum symptom duration requirement of 2 weeks (p<.01). The cutoff on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale required for inclusion in the vortioxetine studies was higher than the cutoff used in the other AETs (p<.01).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of the present analysis is that it was based on published placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion/exclusion criteria in the studies of vortioxetine were more restrictive than the criteria used in other AETs. Inconsistent with FDA guidelines on the labeling of medications, the label of vortioxetine does not include a description of the limits to the group of patients with MDD for whom the medication has been shown to be effective.

Exclusion of older patients from ongoing clinical trials for hematological malignancies: an evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Registry

INTRODUCTION

Cancer societies, research cooperatives, and countless publications have urged the development of clinical trials that facilitate the inclusion of older patients and those with comorbidities. We set out to determine the characteristics of currently recruiting clinical trials with hematological patients to assess their inclusion and exclusion of elderly patients.

METHODS

The NIH clinical trial registry was searched on July 1, 2013, for currently recruiting phase I, II or III clinical trials with hematological malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website.

RESULTS

Although 5% of 1,207 included trials focused exclusively on elderly or unfit patients, 69% explicitly or implicitly excluded older patients. Exclusion based on age was seen in 27% of trials, exclusion based on performance status was seen in 16%, and exclusion based on stringent organ function restrictions was noted in 51%. One-third of the studies that excluded older patients based on age allowed inclusion of younger patients with poor performance status; 8% did not place any restrictions on organ function. Over time, there was a shift from exclusion based on age (p value for trend <.001) toward exclusion based on organ function (p = .2). Industry-sponsored studies were least likely to exclude older patients (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Notably, 27% of currently recruiting clinical trials for hematological malignancies use age-based exclusion criteria. Although physiological reserves diminish with age, the heterogeneity of the elderly population does not legitimize exclusion based on chronological age alone. Investigators should critically review whether sufficient justification exists for every exclusion criterion before incorporating it in trial protocols.

Justification of exclusion criteria was underreported in a review of cardiovascular trials

OBJECTIVES

Ethical guidelines for human subject research require that the burdens and benefits of participation be equally distributed. This study aimed to provide empirical data on exclusion of trial participants and reasons for this exclusion. As a secondary objective, we assessed to what extent exclusion affects generalizability of study results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Review of trials on secondary prevention of cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen trials were identified, of which 112 reported exclusion criteria. One study justified the exclusion criteria applied. Ambiguous exclusion criteria due to the opinion of the physician (28 of 112 = 25%) or physical disability (12 of 112 = 11%) were reported. Within groups of trials that studied similar treatments (ie, beta-blocker, clopidogrel, or statin therapy), baseline characteristics differed among trials. For example, the proportion of women ranged between 23.1-47.4%, 2.1-38.9%, and 10.6-50.6% for the clopidogrel, beta-blocker, and statin trials, respectively. Nevertheless, no evidence was found for heterogeneity of treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

Almost none of the articles justified the applied exclusion criteria. No evidence was found that inclusion of dissimilar participants affected generalizability. To allow for a normative discussion on equitable selection of study populations, researchers should not only report exclusion criteria but also the reasons for using these criteria.

Applicability of proposed diagnostic criteria of pityriasis rosea: results of a prospective case-control study in India

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of pityriasis rosea (PR) is generally clinical. Previous studies usually recruited relatively small numbers of patients and control subjects, leading to low power of study results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses cannot be readily performed, as the inclusion and exclusion criteria of these studies were not uniform. We have previously validated a set of diagnostic criteria (DC) in Chinese patients with PR.

AIM

Our aim is to evaluate the validity and applicability of the DC of PR in Indian patients with PR.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective unblinded pair-matched case-control study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The setting is a dermatology clinic in India served by one board-certified dermatologist. We recruited all 88 patients seen by us during five years diagnosed to have PR to join our study. For each study subject, we recruited the next patient who consulted us with differential diagnoses of PR as control subjects. We applied the DC of PR on all study and control subjects.

RESULT

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the DC were all 100%. Two-tailed Fisher's exact probability test result was 0.036. Φ was 1.00.

CONCLUSION

The set of DC can be validly applied to Indian patients with PR.