Search

Background: Generalizability of results from clinical trials with narrow in-/exclusion criteria are a concern as significant deviations in efficacy or toxicity may occur when treatments are used in populations of elderly and more comorbid patients. The cost-effectiveness of novel therapies may also be less favorable if real-world treatment effects are inferior to clinical trial results. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a recent US study showed that baseline organ function-based eligibility criteria had substantial impact on survival with ineligible patients being at higher risk of dying from progressive lymphoma (1). Aims: The present study explored the impact of commonly used in-/exclusion criteria in key completed and ongoing first line DLBCL trials on survival in a Danish population-based study of patients with de novo DLBCL. Patients and methods: DLBCL patients enrolled in the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) and treated with R-CHOP in the period 2008-19 were screened for completeness of data to match trial eligibility criteria. The key organ/hematology eligibility criteria of completed or ongoing all-comers DLBCL studies (REMoDL-B, Goya, Polarix and Hovon84) were collected (bilirubin, ALAT, creatinine, eGFR, leucocytes, neutrophils, thrombocytes and ECOG). First, high-level trial matching on disease risk group (Ann Arbor, bulky disease, international prognostic index (IPI)) and age-groups were performed so that patients assessed for trial eligibility had a relevant risk profile. Subsequently, patients were divided into eligible or ineligible based on selected in/exclusion criteria. For each trial, overall survival (OS) from treatment start were compared for eligible and ineligible patients using inverse probability of treatment weighted Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Crude OS and OS adjusted for residual imbalances in IPI and age were estimated. When possible, the OS curves from standard arms of the original trials were superimposed on OS plots. For each trial, the Shapley value of each criterion was calculated, using the HRs as well as the 5y restricted loss of lifetimes (RLOLs). The Shapley value measures the average influence of each eligibility criterion on the estimated IPI- and age-adjusted HR/5y RLOL. Results: A total of 3,150 R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients without discordant low-grade lymphoma were identified in the surveyed period. A total of 1,666 patients (52.89% of surveyed population) were available for the REMoDL-B trial, 1,431 (45.43%) for Goya, 1,125 (35.71%) for Polarix, and 1,432 (45.46%) for Hovon84. The variations of numbers for each trial evaluation were explained by trial inclusion criteria and missing data in LYFO. Crude OS estimates for patients with and without all necessary information were similar (data not shown). OS curves for eligible and ineligible patients are shown in Figure 1 and, when possible, with superimposed trial results (Goya, REMoDL-B, Hovon84). Survival differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients were robust to further adjustment of imbalances in age and IPI. Associated crude and adjusted 2 and 5-year OS rates for trial eligible and ineligible are shown in Table 1. The largest numerical difference in 2-year crude OS between eligible and ineligible was observed in the REMoDL-B trial (ineligible had 26% lower 2-year OS rate). The largest numerical difference in 2-year OS adjusted for IPI and age between eligible and ineligible was observed for the Polarix trial (ineligible had 17% lower 2-year OS rate). The strongest drivers of OS differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients in terms of the tested eligibility criteria were thrombocyte count (HR-contribution calculated from Shapley values -0.11; -0.14) and ECOG (HR-contribution -0.09; -0.21). Liver function parameters (bilirubin and ALAT) had low impact on OS (HR-contribution 0.00; -0.05 and 0.00; 0.07). Conclusions: The present population-based study confirms that trial ineligible patients have worse survival even after adjustments in imbalances in age and disease risk category. Thus, trial eligibility criteria have substantial impact on generalizability of results to a wider unselected population. Interestingly, the trial eligible patients identified in the present study had very similar outcomes to R-CHOP treated patients in the original trials supporting the possible use of RWD as synthetic control arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Larsen: BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poulsen: Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

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.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/., Background: Bronchiolitis is a major cause of admission to hospital in children. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is routinely used for infants in the UK with bronchiolitis. Objective: To establish UK paediatric practice regarding management of bronchiolitis, and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a potential future randomised controlled trial of NIV. Design: Screening logs were completed in hospitals in England capturing information on paediatric bronchiolitis admissions. An online national survey of clinical practice was disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) across the UK to ascertain current management strategies. Results: Screening logs captured data on 393 infants from 8 hospitals. Reasons for admission were most commonly respiratory distress and/or poor fluid intake. Oxygen was administered for 54% of admissions. Respiratory (CPAP and HFNC) and non-respiratory support administered varied considerably. The national survey was completed by 111 HCPs from 76 hospitals. Data were obtained on criteria used to commence and wean NIV, responsibilities for altering NIV settings, minimum training requirements for staff managing a child on NIV, and numbers of trained staff. Most centres were interested in and capable of running a trial of NIV, even out of normal office hours. Conclusions: Respiratory and non-respiratory management of bronchiolitis in UK centres varies widely. A trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in this group of patients is feasible and HCPs would be willing to randomise patients into such a trial. Future work should focus on defining trial eligibility criteria., This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-1014-35081).

Background Adults SPRINT ). Estimating the size and characteristics of these excluded groups who meet the other SPRINT eligibility criteria may provide information on the potential impact of providers extending the SPRINT findings to these populations. Methods and Results We analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2012 (n=25 076) to estimate the percentage and characteristics of US adults ≥20 years in 3 populations (age SPRINT who otherwise meet the trial eligibility criteria: age ≥50 years, systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) 130–180 mm Hg, high cardiovascular disease risk, and not having trial exclusion criteria. Overall, 1.0% (95% CI 0.8–1.3) of US adults age CI 23.4–27.6) with diabetes mellitus, and 19.0% (95% CI 16.0–22.4) with history of stroke met the other SPRINT eligibility criteria. Among US adults with SBP ≥130 mm Hg, other SPRINT eligibility criteria were met by 7.5% (95% CI 6.1–9.2) of those age CI 30.5–35.4) with diabetes mellitus, and 23.0% (95% CI 19.4–27.0) with history of stroke. Among US adults meeting the other SPRINT eligibility criteria, antihypertensive medication was being taken by 31.0% (95% CI 23.9–41.3) of those CI 58.2–67.6) with diabetes mellitus, and 68.9% (95% CI 59.4–77.1) with a history of stroke. Conclusions A substantial percentage of US adults with diabetes mellitus or history of stroke and a small percentage SPRINT eligibility criteria.

Authors’ Reply: We appreciate the comments of Van de Water and colleagues. Their examination of the impact of cancer trial eligibility criteria is an example of how common age-related exclusion criteria—criteria that we found to be prevalent in our systematic review of clinical trials in the general medicine literature1—significantly limit the generalizability of study results to many typical older patients. We also agree with their observation that expanding trial eligibility criteria is not without challenges, and that in some circumstances there will be unavoidable barriers to designing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that adequately informs certain aspects of care for older adults. In these instances, as Van de Water and colleagues note, many insights can be gained from well-designed cohort and case-control studies.2 Our study revealed, however, that even when RCTs do examine the effectiveness and safety of treatment in older adults, they frequently do not use appropriate statistical methods to examine heterogeneity (variability) in treatment effects by age.3,4 In particular, few trials explore whether older adults respond differently to a treatment due to their age, or due to their overall risk for disease-related outcomes and complications (a risk that is often influenced by comorbidities, health status, and other characteristics). This information can be of great value to clinicians who are trying to determine whether an individual patient will benefit from a given therapy. Our knowledge base about treatment effects in older adults will, therefore, benefit not only from rigorous observational research and from RCTs that minimize age-related exclusion criteria, but also from more widespread use of statistical approaches that allow us to investigate whether age in itself, or other characteristics prevalent among older adults, explain heterogeneity in treatment effects among our older patients.

Results 33 breast cancer specialists ranked 39 trials in order of importance with the 12 most selected included in this study. Of 4811 women in the Tayside dataset, the number meeting eligibility criteria for the 12 trials ranged from 822 (17%) to 3419 (71%). Reasons for exclusion included age and comorbidity. Many women received a treatment evaluated in a trial but would themselves not have been eligible for the trial. For example, of 572 patients prescribed anastrazole and tamoxifen, only 281 were eligible for the trial evaluating that combination. Work to explicitly compare treatment decisions in clinical practice to trial eligibility criteria is ongoing.