| 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. In this article, we propose a novel approach that aims to explore and examine these discrepancies by concomitantly investigating the impact of selection criteria and operations on the measurements of outcomes from the patient data. 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 = 1224). 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. Discovering and accounting for confounders, including hidden effects of differences in operations related to the treatment process and clinical trial study protocol, would potentially allow for improved translation between clinical trials and real-world data. Continued development of the method presented here to systematically explore and account for these differences 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. © 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. |
