Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 14, 2017

Evaluating Anti-infective Drugs in the Resistant Pathogen Setting: Can We Use External Controls?

Scott R Evans and John Powers

Abstract

Decreased efficacy of antibiotics due to resistant pathogens has created a need for the development of more effective medical interventions. Despite the increasing prevalence of pathogens resistant to one or more drugs, identifying and enrolling participants into clinical trials that evaluate new interventions for the treatment of some diseases can be challenging given the low prevalence of disease in which there are no effective treatments. Thus researchers might be tempted to consider externally-controlled trials that may allow for a reduction of the necessary number of prospectively-identified trial participants, thus easing recruitment burden and resulting in more timely trial completion relative to randomized controlled trials. We discuss advantages and disadvantages in externally controlled trials and review requirements for a valid externally-controlled trial. As ECTs are subject to the bias of observational studies, the criteria for a valid ECT should be carefully evaluated before these designs are implemented. Given considerable variation in study results in the resistant pathogen setting, the lack of information on important patient characteristics that may confound estimates of treatment effects, as well as the improvements in medical practice and evolving antibiotic resistance, the use of ECTs in the resistant pathogen setting, is not recommended. ECTs should be should be limited to specific situations where superiority of the effect of the new intervention is dramatic, the usual course of the disease highly predictable, the endpoints are objective (e. g., all-cause mortality) and the impact of baseline and treatment variables on outcomes is well characterized. Given that the resistant pathogen setting does not satisfy these criteria, we conclude that that randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate new treatments for resistant pathogens. Innovative approaches to trial design that may ease recruitment burden while evaluating the benefits and harms of new treatments are being developed and utilized.

Funding statement: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UM1AI104681. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

Cameron, E., and L. Pauling. 1976. “Supplemental Ascorbate in the Supportive Treatment of Cancer: Prolongation of Survival Times in Terminal Human Cancer.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 73 : 3685–3689. Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, E., and L. Pauling. 1978. “Supplemental Ascorbate in the Supportive Treatment of Cancer: Reevaluation of Prolongation of Survival Times in Terminal Human Cancer.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 75 : 4538–4542. Search in Google Scholar

Cox, E., K. Borio, and R. Temple. 2014. “Evaluating Ebola Therapies – The Case for Rcts.” The New England Journal of Medicine 371 (25): 2350–2351. Search in Google Scholar

Evans, S. R., and D. Follmann. 2015. “Fundamentals and Innovation in Antibiotic Trials.” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 7 (4): 331–336. DOI:10.1080/19466315.2015.1094406. Search in Google Scholar

Evans, S. R., and D. Follmann. 2016. “Using Outcomes to Analyze Patients Rather than Patients to Analyze Outcomes: A Step toward Pragmatism in Benefit: Risk Evaluation.” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 8 (4): 386–393. Search in Google Scholar

Falagas, M. E., G. S. Tansarli, D. E. Karageorgopoulos, and K. Z. Vardakas. 2014. “Deaths Attributable to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 20 (7): 1170–1175. DOI:10.3201/eid2007.121004. Search in Google Scholar

Gehan, E. A. 1984. “The Evaluation of Therapies: Historical Control Studies.” Statistics in Medicine 3 : 315–324. Search in Google Scholar

Hartz, A., T. He, R. Wallace, et al.. 2013. “Comparing Hormone Therapy Effects in Two Rcts and Two Large Observational Studies that Used Similar Methods for Comprehensive Data Collection and Outcome Assessment.” BMJ Open 3 : e002556. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002556. Search in Google Scholar

International Conference on Harmonization (ICH)-E10. (2000).Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials. Search in Google Scholar

Moertel, C. C., T. R. Fleming, E. T. Creagan, et al.. 1985. “High Dose Vitamin C and Placebo in the Treatment of Advanced Cancer Patients with No Prior Chemotherapy. A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison.” The New England Journal of Medicine 312 : 137–141. Search in Google Scholar

Patulin Clinical Trials Committee, Medical Research Council. 2004. “Clinical Trial of Patulin in the Common Cold.” International Journal of Epidemiology 33 : 243–246. DOI:10.1093/ije/dyh028. Search in Google Scholar

(Patulin in the Common Cold: Introduction by H. Raistrick; Biochemistry and Chemistry, by JH Birkinshaw, SE Michael, A Bracken, and H Raistrick; Preliminary Trial in the Common Cold, by WE Gye; Biological Properties and Extended Trial in the Common Cold, by WA Hopkins; Statistical Note by M Greenwood) (1943). Lancet, ii, 625. Search in Google Scholar

Rosenberger, L. H., D. J. Lapper, and R. G. Sawyer. 2012. “Infections Caused by Multidrug Resistant Organisms are Not Associated with Overall, All-Cause Mortality in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit: The 20,000 Foot View.” Journal of the American College of Surgeons 214 : 747–755. Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H., T. C. Chalmers, and H. Smith. 1982. “Randomized versus Historical Controls for Clinical Trials.” The American Journal of Medicine 72 : 233–240. Search in Google Scholar

Stafford, K. A., M Boutin, S. R. Evans, and A. D. Harris. 2014. “Difficulties in Demonstrating Superiority of an Antibiotic for Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria in Non-Randomized Studies.” CID 59 (8): 1142–1147. Search in Google Scholar

Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in health menopausal women: principle results from the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. 2002 JAMA 288 : 321–333. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-5-26
Revised: 2016-10-5
Accepted: 2016-12-5
Published Online: 2017-3-14

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston