Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Clinical Trial Participants and Nonparticipants Using Electronic Health Record Data

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Assessing generalizability of clinical trials is important to ensure appropriate application of interventions, but most assessments provide minimal granularity on comparisons of clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVE To assess the extent of underlying clinical differences between clinical trial participants and nonparticipants by using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study used data obtained from a single academic medical center between September 1996 and January 2019 to identify 1645 clinical trial participants from a diverse set of 202 available trials conducted at the center. Using an aggregated resampling procedure, nonparticipants were matched to participants 1:1 based on trial conditions, number of recent visits to a health care professional, and calendar time. EXPOSURES Clinical trial enrollment vs no enrollment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between participants and nonparticipants in clinical trials stratified into the 4 most common disease domains. RESULTS This cross-sectional study included 1645 participants from 202 trials (929 [56.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.65 [21.38] years) and an aggregated set of 1645 nonparticipants (855 [52.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 57.24 [21.91] years). The most common disease domains for the selected trialswere neoplastic disease (86 trials; 737 participants), disorders of the digestive system (31 trials; 321 participants), inflammatory disorders (28 trials; 276 participants), and disorders of the cardiovascular system (27 trials; 319 participants); trials could qualify for multiple disease domains. Among 31 conditions, the percentage of conditions for which the prevalence was lower among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.5% (20 conditions) for neoplastic disease trials, 61.3% (19) for digestive system trials, 58.1% (18) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 38.7% (12) for cardiovascular system trials. Among 17 medications, the percentage of medications for which use was less among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.7% (11) for neoplastic disease trials, 58.8% (10) for digestive system trials, 88.2% (15) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 52.9% (9) for cardiovascular system trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEUsing a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data, this study found that clinical trial participants had fewer comorbidities and less use of medication than nonparticipants across a variety of disease domains. Combining trial enrollment data with electronic health record data may be useful for better understanding of the generalizability of trial results.

Temporal muscle thickness as an independent prognostic imaging marker in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients: A validation study

“… 18 Our study confirms its applicability in a nonstudy population, which is important for external validity since clinical trial patients are selected, for example, upon their performance status and often significantly differ from real-world patients. 21 , 22 In our study, patients at risk of sarcopenia had a significant shorter OS compared to patients with a normal muscle status, independent of other well-known prognostic factors. This negative association was also true for PFS.…”

“…However, solely patients with an ECOG score of 0-1 (fully active or only restricted in physically strenuous activity) were included and often clinical trial participants significantly differ from real-world patients which could limit external validity. 21 , 22 …”

Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Patients included in randomised trials tend to have fewer comorbidities and use fewer drugs than patients commonly seen in real clinical settings. 65 66 Although we found conclusive evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events with viscosupplementation in trial populations, it is plausible that this risk could be more pronounced in a more fragile patient population, commonly seen in clinical settings outside of clinical trials. 65 66 Therefore, large, properly conducted observational studies or phase IV post marketing surveillance trials would provide useful evidence.…”

Using aggregate patient data at the bedside via an on-demand consultation service

“…Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest quality source of evidence about treatment efficacy and safety. Evidence derived from RCTs, however, often does not generalize to the vast majority of patients, who tend to have multiple comorbidities, take many medications, and differ from individuals enrolled in RCTs on many characteristics 4 , resulting in an inferential gap between the evidence that is available and that which is needed 5,6 . Therefore, it is necessary to transform the evidence generation process 7 and to incorporate the use of aggregate patient data at the point of care 8 in order to create a successful learning health system 9 .…”