Evidence Hub

Randomized Clinical Trial Representativeness and Outcomes in Real-World Patients: Comparison of 6 Hallmark Randomized Clinical Trials of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

A. Chari, D. Romanus, A. Palumbo, M. Blazer, E. Farrelly, A. Raju, Hui Huang, P. Richardson

Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, 2019

788 participants · 97 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Concern has been increasing in oncology regarding randomized clinical trial (RCT) eligibility limiting the generalizability of the findings to real-world populations. Using a large US electronic health record database, we investigated the real-world generalizability of the findings from recent RCTs for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with RRMM initiating second-to fourth-line therapy with the control arm of the following RCTs were retrospectively identified and categorized as "RCT eligible" or "RCT ineligible" according to the eligibility criteria: (1) Rd (lenalidomide, dexamethasone)-ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, POLLUX, and ELOQUENT-2; and (2) Vd (bortezomib, dexamethasone)-CASTOR and ENDEAVOR. Predictors of RCT ineligibility and overall survival were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Variations in the individual trial ineligibility rates were noted, with up to 72.3% (range, 47.9%-72.3%) of patients not meeting the eligibility criteria for 1 of the 6 hallmark RCTs (n = 788 for Rd; n = 477 for Vd). Other malignancies, cardiovascular disease, acute infection, and renal dysfunction were the common reasons for ineligibility. Advanced age, Charlson comorbidity score of ≥ 2, later therapy lines (3-4), and refractory status to the previous line were independently predictive of RCT ineligibility. RCT-ineligible versus RCT-eligible patients had a significantly greater mortality risk (hazard…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 788 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free