Synthetic and External Controls in Clinical Trials – A Primer for Researchers

References

• Groth SW. Honorarium or coercion: use of incentives for participants in clinical research. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2010;41(1):11.20882821
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiodo GT, Tolle SW, Bevan L. Placebo-controlled trials: good science or medical neglect? West J Med. 2000;172(4):271–273. doi:10.1136/ewjm.172.4.27110778385
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hey SP, London AJ, Weijer C, Rid A, Miller F. Is the concept of clinical equipoise still relevant to research? BMJ. 2017;359:j5787.29284666
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(4):1009–1024. doi:10.1007/s00228-012-1423-223090701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasinowski FJ, Panico EB, Valentine JE. Quantum of effectiveness evidence in FDA’s approval of orphan drugs: update, July 2010 to June 2014. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(5):680–697. doi:10.1177/216847901558038330227043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. Submitting Documents Using Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to FDA for Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• EMEA CfMPfHUJL. Guideline on Clinical Trials in Small Populations; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• FDA approves first treatment for a form of batten disease [press release]. Online, 4 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Petrone J. Roche pays $1.9 billion for Flatiron’s army of electronic health record curators. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):289–290. doi:10.1038/nbt0418-28929621225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalder RZ, Wrobel BJ, Boehncke L, Brembilla W-H, Costantino N. The janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib impacts human dendritic cell differentiation and favours M1 macrophage development. Exp Dermatol. 2019;12:12.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson M, Naci H, Morrison D, Osipenko L, Mossialos E. A review of NICE appraisals of pharmaceuticals 2000–2016 found variation in establishing comparative clinical effectiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;105:50–59.30236484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Group IEW. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Mills EJ, Bakanda C, Birungi J, Yaya S, Ford N. The prognostic value of baseline CD4(+) cell count beyond 6 months of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive patients in a resource-limited setting. AIDS. 2012;26(11):1425–1429. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e328354bf4322526520
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization WH. Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection in Adults and Adolescents: Recommendations for a Public Health Approach-2010 Revision; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Moffett P, Moore G. The standard of care: legal history and definitions: the bad and good news. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(1):109–112.21691483
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Markman M. Standard of care versus standards of care in oncology: a not so subtle distinction. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3(6):291. doi:10.1200/JOP.076150220859383
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mian AN, Ibrahim F, Scott IC, et al. Changing clinical patterns in rheumatoid arthritis management over two decades: sequential observational studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):44. doi:10.1186/s12891-016-0897-y26818465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohan V, Cooper ME, Matthews DR, Khunti K. The standard of care in type 2 diabetes: re-evaluating the treatment paradigm. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(1):1–13. doi:10.1007/s13300-019-0573-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47(1):207–214. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::AID-CNCR2820470134>3.0.CO;2-67459811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. JNCI. 2000;92(3):205–216. doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.20510655437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.02619097774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–73. doi:10.7326/M14-069825560730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100174425314315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Smeden M, de Groot JAH, Moons KGM, et al. No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):163.27881078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dron L, Golchi S, Hsu G, Thorlund K.Minimizing control group allocation in randomized trials using dynamic borrowing of external control data – an application to second line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Contemp Clin Trials Comm.2019;16:100446. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson E, Morley R, Lucas A, Carpenter J. Propensity scores: from naive enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21(3):273–293. doi:10.1177/096228021039448321262780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan SL, Winship C. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. 2 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004;23(19):2937–2960. doi:10.1002/sim.190315351954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K, Wood J, Reynolds MR, Petersen I. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research. BMJ. 2013;347(nov11 3):f6409. doi:10.1136/bmj.f640924217206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-3. Value Health. 2012;15(6):812–820. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.01422999130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(13):981–990. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.13.98112096083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gokbuget N, Kelsh M, Chia V, et al. Blinatumomab vs historical standard therapy of adult relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6(9):e473. doi:10.1038/bcj.2016.8427662202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–394.21195583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Readiness of Electronic Health Record Systems to Contribute to National Health Information and Research; 2017.
   Google Scholar