Exploring the discrepancies between clinical trials and real-world data by accounting for Selection criteria, Operations, and Measurements of Outcome

Luca Marzano,Adam S. Darwich,Asaf Dan,Salomon Tendler,Rolf Lewensohn,Luigi De Petris,Jayanth Raghothama,Sebastiaan Meijer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.22.24301594

2024-06-24

Abstract:The potential of real-world data to inform clinical trial design and supplement control arms has gained much interest in recent years. The most common approach relies on reproducing control arm outcomes by matching real-world patient cohorts to clinical trial baseline populations. However, recent studies pointed out that there is a lack of replicability, generalisability, and consensus. Further, few studies consider differences in operational processes. Discovering and accounting for confounders, including hidden effects related to the treatment process and clinical trial study protocol, would potentially allow for improved translation between clinical trials and real-world data. In this paper, we propose an approach that aims to explore and examine these confounders by investigating the impact of selection criteria and operations on the measurements of outcome. We tested the approach on a dataset consisting of small cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy regimens from a real-world data cohort (n=223) and six clinical trial control arms (n=1,224). The results showed that the discrepancy between real-world and clinical trial data potentially depends on differences in both patient populations and operational conditions (e.g., frequency of assessments, and censoring), for which further investigation is required. The outcomes of this work suggest areas of improvement for systematically exploring and accounting for differences in outcomes between study cohorts. Continued development of the method presented here could pave the way for transferring learning across clinical studies and developing mutual translation between the real-world and clinical trials to inform clinical study design.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper attempts to address the discrepancies between clinical trial data and real-world data (RWD). Specifically, the study focuses on how differences in selection criteria, operational processes, and outcome measurements affect the consistency and reproducibility of these two datasets. The authors propose a systematic approach (SOMO method) aimed at exploring these differences by analyzing Selection criteria (S), Operational processes (O), and Outcome measurements (MO), and assessing their impact on the results.

The study utilized datasets of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients, including real-world data of patients receiving platinum-etoposide chemotherapy (n=223) and control group data from six clinical trials (n=1,224). The results indicate that the discrepancies between real-world data and clinical trial data may depend on differences in patient population characteristics and operational conditions (e.g., assessment frequency and censoring). This work suggests that these factors need to be considered in future improvements to clinical trial design and further development of methods that facilitate translation between clinical studies.