Why results of clinical trials and observational studies of antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy differ: Methodological and interpretive issues

F. Wolfe, K. Michaud, E. M. DeWitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Results of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) appear to differ from results of observational studies. This paper explores differences in methodology, interpretation and presentation of results that elucidate these differences. Method: We identified patients who completed a survey questionnaire during the period January 1998 through December 1998 and also completed one between July 2003 and June 2004, an average span of 4.7 years. The mean time from study initiation to anti-TNF administration was 2.1 years, and the mean treatment time was 2.1 (SD 1.3) years at study closure. During this period 38.3% of patients received anti-TNF therapy. We compared the results of patients in this group with results from RCTs. Results: RCTs utilise flare design, patient selection, control groups and regression to the mean. Observational studies, on the other hand, confound additional prior therapy and anti-TNF effect, do not employ control groups, and may have less regression to the mean. Conclusions: RCTs and observational studies assess and report efficacy and effectiveness in ways that are so different that they are often incommensurable. A key difference is whether results should represent changes from flare states or should, instead, consider chronic status prior to initiation of therapy. There is little evidence that the clinical state at the start of most anti-TNF RCTs represents a chronic state. Economic analyses that utilise the RCT starting point over-estimate the cost effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy. The solution for these problems and a guide to understanding the real results of anti-TNF therapy lies in collecting preclinical trial data in all patients who will enter clinical trials. In addition, RCT results would more approximate those of observational studies if all reporting was done after subtracting the effect of the comparator group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)ii13-ii17
JournalAnnals of the rheumatic diseases
Volume63
Issue numberSUPPL. 2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2004

Fingerprint

Observational Studies
Necrosis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Cost effectiveness
Economics
Therapeutics
Control Groups
Time and Motion Studies
Clinical Studies
Patient Selection
Cost-Benefit Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Rheumatology
  • Immunology
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

Why results of clinical trials and observational studies of antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy differ : Methodological and interpretive issues. / Wolfe, F.; Michaud, K.; DeWitt, E. M.

In: Annals of the rheumatic diseases, Vol. 63, No. SUPPL. 2, 01.11.2004, p. ii13-ii17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{eb6c1cf573294e61b7492ae2a9db6556,
title = "Why results of clinical trials and observational studies of antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy differ: Methodological and interpretive issues",
abstract = "Objective: Results of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) appear to differ from results of observational studies. This paper explores differences in methodology, interpretation and presentation of results that elucidate these differences. Method: We identified patients who completed a survey questionnaire during the period January 1998 through December 1998 and also completed one between July 2003 and June 2004, an average span of 4.7 years. The mean time from study initiation to anti-TNF administration was 2.1 years, and the mean treatment time was 2.1 (SD 1.3) years at study closure. During this period 38.3{\%} of patients received anti-TNF therapy. We compared the results of patients in this group with results from RCTs. Results: RCTs utilise flare design, patient selection, control groups and regression to the mean. Observational studies, on the other hand, confound additional prior therapy and anti-TNF effect, do not employ control groups, and may have less regression to the mean. Conclusions: RCTs and observational studies assess and report efficacy and effectiveness in ways that are so different that they are often incommensurable. A key difference is whether results should represent changes from flare states or should, instead, consider chronic status prior to initiation of therapy. There is little evidence that the clinical state at the start of most anti-TNF RCTs represents a chronic state. Economic analyses that utilise the RCT starting point over-estimate the cost effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy. The solution for these problems and a guide to understanding the real results of anti-TNF therapy lies in collecting preclinical trial data in all patients who will enter clinical trials. In addition, RCT results would more approximate those of observational studies if all reporting was done after subtracting the effect of the comparator group.",
author = "F. Wolfe and K. Michaud and DeWitt, {E. M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/ard.2004.028530",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "63",
pages = "ii13--ii17",
journal = "Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases",
issn = "0003-4967",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "SUPPL. 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why results of clinical trials and observational studies of antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy differ

T2 - Methodological and interpretive issues

AU - Wolfe, F.

AU - Michaud, K.

AU - DeWitt, E. M.

PY - 2004/11/1

Y1 - 2004/11/1

N2 - Objective: Results of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) appear to differ from results of observational studies. This paper explores differences in methodology, interpretation and presentation of results that elucidate these differences. Method: We identified patients who completed a survey questionnaire during the period January 1998 through December 1998 and also completed one between July 2003 and June 2004, an average span of 4.7 years. The mean time from study initiation to anti-TNF administration was 2.1 years, and the mean treatment time was 2.1 (SD 1.3) years at study closure. During this period 38.3% of patients received anti-TNF therapy. We compared the results of patients in this group with results from RCTs. Results: RCTs utilise flare design, patient selection, control groups and regression to the mean. Observational studies, on the other hand, confound additional prior therapy and anti-TNF effect, do not employ control groups, and may have less regression to the mean. Conclusions: RCTs and observational studies assess and report efficacy and effectiveness in ways that are so different that they are often incommensurable. A key difference is whether results should represent changes from flare states or should, instead, consider chronic status prior to initiation of therapy. There is little evidence that the clinical state at the start of most anti-TNF RCTs represents a chronic state. Economic analyses that utilise the RCT starting point over-estimate the cost effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy. The solution for these problems and a guide to understanding the real results of anti-TNF therapy lies in collecting preclinical trial data in all patients who will enter clinical trials. In addition, RCT results would more approximate those of observational studies if all reporting was done after subtracting the effect of the comparator group.

AB - Objective: Results of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) appear to differ from results of observational studies. This paper explores differences in methodology, interpretation and presentation of results that elucidate these differences. Method: We identified patients who completed a survey questionnaire during the period January 1998 through December 1998 and also completed one between July 2003 and June 2004, an average span of 4.7 years. The mean time from study initiation to anti-TNF administration was 2.1 years, and the mean treatment time was 2.1 (SD 1.3) years at study closure. During this period 38.3% of patients received anti-TNF therapy. We compared the results of patients in this group with results from RCTs. Results: RCTs utilise flare design, patient selection, control groups and regression to the mean. Observational studies, on the other hand, confound additional prior therapy and anti-TNF effect, do not employ control groups, and may have less regression to the mean. Conclusions: RCTs and observational studies assess and report efficacy and effectiveness in ways that are so different that they are often incommensurable. A key difference is whether results should represent changes from flare states or should, instead, consider chronic status prior to initiation of therapy. There is little evidence that the clinical state at the start of most anti-TNF RCTs represents a chronic state. Economic analyses that utilise the RCT starting point over-estimate the cost effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy. The solution for these problems and a guide to understanding the real results of anti-TNF therapy lies in collecting preclinical trial data in all patients who will enter clinical trials. In addition, RCT results would more approximate those of observational studies if all reporting was done after subtracting the effect of the comparator group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7044227565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7044227565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ard.2004.028530

DO - 10.1136/ard.2004.028530

M3 - Article

C2 - 15479864

AN - SCOPUS:7044227565

VL - 63

SP - ii13-ii17

JO - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

JF - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

SN - 0003-4967

IS - SUPPL. 2

ER -