The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials

Medical Research Council Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.03). 10/2005; 9(38):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-152. DOI: 10.3310/hta9380
Source: PubMed


To investigate the exclusion from trials of women, older people and minority ethnic groups, focusing on two drug exemplars, statins and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
Medical and ethical databases. Workshops with stakeholders.
Literature was reviewed on exclusions in healthcare research and three workshops were held with stakeholders. Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of statins use for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) and 25 NSAIDs trials for pain in osteoarthritis (OA) were analysed. Using a Scottish cohort with record-linkage, profiling was carried out for 3188 people needing secondary prevention for CHD (1993-1996), ascertaining the independent effects of statins, and 131,410 people dispensed NSAIDs (1989-1996), examining adverse effects. Routine data sources were accessed to profile the need for secondary prevention of CHD in England and usage was estimated by consulting published surveys. The Somerset and Avon Survey of Health (SASH) 1996-97 and published data were accessed for information on potential need and usage of NSAIDs in OA. For both drugs, the socio-demographic profiles of trial samples, the population in potential need and those on treatment were compared. An evidence synthesis was produced to clarify the effects of statins on women and older people and the relationship of absolute effectiveness outcomes with underlying risk levels of disease events was modelled, examining the likely effects of trial exclusions.
The average age of statins trial participants was 58.5 years; only 16.3% were women. Statins reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence by about 25% in both men and women. Older people up to 75 years of age also benefited. Meta-analysis and two landmark trials confirmed these results. The average age of NSAIDs trial participants was 61.9 years and women were well represented (68.5%). Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events were commonly reported, but renal side-effects were not. Outcomes were seldom reported according to socio-demographic group. For both drugs, USA trials were more inclusive than UK/European trials. Ethnicity was not well reported for either drug. Some 23% of the cohort were treated with statins. Users were younger than non-statins users (but no more likely to be male) and had superior outcomes. High current exposure to NSAIDs elevated the risk of GI side-effects by about 50% versus no current exposure and renal impairment risk by nearly 140%. Side-effect risk increased with age; being female diminished risk. Approximately 537,000 incident cases of CVD would qualify for statins use in England each year. Women constitute 45% of this population with need, two-thirds of whom are aged 65 years or over. Need varies by ethnic group. No sex bias in prescribing statins was detected, but use was commoner in younger people. For NSAIDs, 6.3% of adults aged 35+ years reported hip and/or knee pain associated with OA; 3.9% of adults used prescribed analgesics for this and they were more likely to be women and to be >65 years old. For statins, women formed almost half of the 'with need' and 'on treatment' populations, but were markedly under-represented in trials. Those aged 65+ years formed nearly two-thirds of the 'with need' population, but only one-fifth of trial samples, and were less likely to be treated than younger subjects. For NSAIDs, women formed similar proportions. Associations of side-effects with socio-demographic factors was revealed in cohort data but not in trials.
The issue of exclusion from trials of women, older people and ethnic minorities has been relatively neglected in the UK research community, and there is confusion about diversity issues. Under-representation occurs, but in drug trials at least this may not always affect the external validity of relative effect estimates. However, measures of absolute effectiveness, absolute harm and cost-effectiveness are associated with underlying risk levels in different socio-demographic groups. Under-representation will therefore bias absolute effect estimates. The following areas are suggested for future research: multi-disciplinary assessment of realistic options for trialists to address the issue of exclusions; clarification of the use of ethnic categories in health research and of the implications of the different dimensions of ageing and sex/gender; identification of barriers and facilitators to the involvement of different population groups in research, further investigation of the susceptibility of older men to NSAID adverse events, and the development of a 'register of registries and databases' and exploration of how linked health information systems in the UK could be improved.

Download full-text


Available from: Paul Dieppe, May 04, 2015
  • Source
    • "The external validity (generalisability) of trial results in routine clinical practice and their relevance for health policy makers may, however, be questioned [1]–[3]. For example, evidence suggests that trial participants are often unrepresentative of the target population [4]–[9], which can introduce bias in the measures of effect [10]. Various trial designs [11]–[13], recommendations [14] and tools [15] have been suggested to enhance or assess the applicability of RCTs. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice.
    PLoS ONE 02/2013; 8(2):e56560. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0056560 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Additionally, nesting the RCT in a prospective cohort study makes it possible to present information on the representativeness of the RCT population, by comparing this population with non-participants [33,34]. Furthermore, outcomes of the randomised trial can be compared with the parallel non-randomised trial that employs the same types of intervention. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In The Netherlands, helmet therapy is a commonly used treatment in infants with skull deformation (deformational plagiocephaly or deformational brachycephaly). However, evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment remains lacking. The HEADS study (HElmet therapy Assessment in Deformed Skulls) aims to determine the effects and costs of helmet therapy compared to no helmet therapy in infants with moderate to severe skull deformation. Pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) nested in a cohort study. The cohort study included infants with a positional preference and/or skull deformation at two to four months (first assessment). At 5 months of age, all children were assessed again and infants meeting the criteria for helmet therapy were asked to participate in the RCT. Participants were randomly allocated to either helmet therapy or no helmet therapy. Parents of eligible infants that do not agree with enrolment in the RCT were invited to stay enrolled for follow up in a non-randomisedrandomised controlled trial (nRCT); they were then free to make the decision to start helmet therapy or not. Follow-up assessments took place at 8, 12 and 24 months of age. The main outcome will be head shape at 24 months that is measured using plagiocephalometry. Secondary outcomes will be satisfaction of parents and professionals with the appearance of the child, parental concerns about the future, anxiety level and satisfaction with the treatment, motor development and quality of life of the infant. Finally, compliance and costs will also be determined. HEADS will be the first study presenting data from an RCT on the effectiveness of helmet therapy. Outcomes will be important for affected children and their parents, health care professionals and future treatment policies. Our findings are likely to influence the reimbursement policies of health insurance companies.Besides these health outcomes, we will be able to address several methodological questions, e.g. do participants in an RCT represent the eligible target population and do outcomes of the RCT differ from outcomes found in the nRCT? ISRCTN18473161.
    Trials 07/2012; 13(1):108. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-13-108 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "For example, age and sex of trial participants is of obvious relevance to external validity of a trial. A good illustration of this is the relative lack of representation of women and the elderly in trials of interventions in ischaemic heart disease which makes applicability of their results to those patient groups less certain [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data supporting external validity of trial results allows clinicians to assess the applicability of a study's findings to their practice population. Socio-economic status (SES) of trial participants may be critical to external validity given the relationship between social and economic circumstances and health. We explored how this is documented in reports of RCTs in four major general medical journals. The contents lists of four leading general medical journals were hand searched to identify 25 consecutive papers reporting RCT results in each journal (n = 100). Data on demographic characteristics were extracted from each paper's Table 1 only (or equivalent). Authors infrequently reported key demographic characteristics relating to SES of RCT participants. Age and gender of participants were commonly reported. Less than 10% reported occupational group, employment status, income or area based measures of disadvantage. Without adequate reporting of key indicators of SES in trial participants it is unclear if lower SES groups are under-represented. If such groups are systematically under-recruited into trials, this may limit the external validity and applicability of study findings to these groups. This is in spite of the higher health-care need in more disadvantaged populations. Under-representation of low SES groups could underestimate the reported effect of an intervention for those with a higher baseline risk. The marginal benefit identified in a trial with poor or no representation of lower SES participants could significantly underestimate the potential benefit to a low SES community. More transparency in this reporting and greater attention to the impact of SES on intervention outcomes in clinical trials is needed. This could be considered in the next revision of the CONSORT statement.
    International Journal for Equity in Health 03/2012; 11(1):14. DOI:10.1186/1475-9276-11-14 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more