How generalizable are the results of large randomized controlled trials of antiretroviral therapy?
- 1 July 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in HIV Medicine
- Vol. 1 (3) , 149-154
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-1293.2000.00019.x
Abstract
To examine the generalizability of two large randomized controlled clinical trials of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected individuals. The demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of HIV-infected participants in two antiretroviral trials (Concorde and Delta) at three study sites were compared with those of two other groups of patients to whom the trial results would be applicable: eligible patients who were screened for the trials but who did not enrol, and eligible patients who were not approached or screened for the trials. Among enrolled participants in the Concorde and Delta trials there was an under-representation of patients who had acquired HIV infection heterosexually (P = 0.014) or through injecting drug use (P = 0.03), and a greater representation of homosexual men (P < 0.001) compared to non-enrolled participants. Trial participants in Concorde had significantly less advanced immunosuppression compared to non-trial participants (P = 0.0001), while in Delta the converse was true. Concorde participants were also much less likely to be lost to follow-up for more than a year (9%) compared to eligible but unscreened patients (40%) (P < 0.001), and screened but unenrolled patients (22%) (P = 0.035). In applying the findings of large randomized clinical trials, it is important to establish whether there are systematic differences between the characteristics of trial participants and eligible non-participants, which might affect the generalizability of the study results. A log of the characteristics of enrolled as well as eligible but non-enrolled patients should be maintained so that the representativeness of the trial population can be evaluated.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysisHeart, 1999
- Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reportsBMJ, 1997
- Antiretroviral therapies in HIV-1 infectionExpert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, 1997
- Generalisability of results from randomised drug trialsThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 1997
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996
- Delta: a randomised double-blind controlled trial comparing combinations of zidovudine plus didanosine or zalcitabine with zidovudine alone in HIV-infected individualsThe Lancet, 1996
- Factors associated with initiation of primary medical care for HIV-infected personsThe American Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infectionThe Lancet, 1994
- The challenge of minority recruitment in clinical trials for AIDSPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1992
- Physicians’ Reasons for Not Entering Eligible Patients in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgery for Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984