Methodological approaches for generating robust evidence from trials in rare diseases

IF 1.4 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Ralf-Dieter Hilgers , Nicole Heussen
{"title":"Methodological approaches for generating robust evidence from trials in rare diseases","authors":"Ralf-Dieter Hilgers ,&nbsp;Nicole Heussen","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.07.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Generating scientific evidence from clinical trials for the treatment of rare diseases is associated with particular challenges. Standard clinical trial methodology is hardly ever appropriate in the rare disease setting, so innovative approaches need to be developed, evaluated and established. Among the various innovative methodologies introduced two approaches are discussed in more detail: the influence of randomised treatment allocation and the integration of external control information, both with respect to the level of evidence. The evaluation of the impact of randomised treatment allocation is guided by a structured approach which can be used to inform the design in the planning phase of a trial and select an appropriate randomisation procedure. Moreover, after the conduct of the trial the magnitude of actual bias can be estimated, and both a bias-adjusted treatment effect and a bias-adjusted test can be derived to put the level of reachable evidence into context. Adding external control data to randomised clinical trials appears charming with respect to small numbers of available patients but raises the question of how this can be achieved without compromising on the quality of evidence. One approach that seems promising in this respect is to check after a determined proportion of the total sample size whether the addition of external control data appears justified without compromising the pre-specified level of evidence. New approaches need to be accepted by all stakeholders. Their strengths and weaknesses in terms of reachable evidence need to be evaluated and presented in a such a way that they are comprehensible for patients, clinicians, industry, regulatory and HTA bodies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":"189 ","pages":"Pages 66-72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724001521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generating scientific evidence from clinical trials for the treatment of rare diseases is associated with particular challenges. Standard clinical trial methodology is hardly ever appropriate in the rare disease setting, so innovative approaches need to be developed, evaluated and established. Among the various innovative methodologies introduced two approaches are discussed in more detail: the influence of randomised treatment allocation and the integration of external control information, both with respect to the level of evidence. The evaluation of the impact of randomised treatment allocation is guided by a structured approach which can be used to inform the design in the planning phase of a trial and select an appropriate randomisation procedure. Moreover, after the conduct of the trial the magnitude of actual bias can be estimated, and both a bias-adjusted treatment effect and a bias-adjusted test can be derived to put the level of reachable evidence into context. Adding external control data to randomised clinical trials appears charming with respect to small numbers of available patients but raises the question of how this can be achieved without compromising on the quality of evidence. One approach that seems promising in this respect is to check after a determined proportion of the total sample size whether the addition of external control data appears justified without compromising the pre-specified level of evidence. New approaches need to be accepted by all stakeholders. Their strengths and weaknesses in terms of reachable evidence need to be evaluated and presented in a such a way that they are comprehensible for patients, clinicians, industry, regulatory and HTA bodies.
从罕见病试验中获得可靠证据的方法论
从治疗罕见病的临床试验中获取科学证据是一项特殊的挑战。标准的临床试验方法几乎不适合罕见病,因此需要开发、评估和确立创新方法。在引入的各种创新方法中,我们将更详细地讨论两种方法:随机治疗分配的影响和外部对照信息的整合,这两种方法都与证据水平有关。对随机治疗分配影响的评估是在结构化方法的指导下进行的,该方法可用于在试验规划阶段为设计提供信息,并选择适当的随机化程序。此外,在试验进行之后,还可以估算出实际偏倚的程度,并得出偏倚调整后的治疗效果和偏倚调整后的检验结果,以确定可达到的证据水平。在随机临床试验中增加外部对照数据,对于少量可用患者来说似乎很有吸引力,但也提出了如何在不影响证据质量的前提下实现这一目标的问题。在这方面,一种似乎很有前景的方法是,在样本总量达到一定比例后,检查外部对照数据的添加是否合理,同时不影响预先指定的证据水平。新方法需要得到所有利益相关者的认可。新方法在可获得证据方面的优缺点需要进行评估,并以患者、临床医生、行业、监管机构和 HTA 机构都能理解的方式进行介绍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信