A data-zone scoring system to assess the generalizability of clinical trial results to individual patients

Abstract

Introduction

Evaluating the applicability of a clinical trial to a specific patient is difficult. A novel framework, the Trial Score, was created to quantify the generalizability of a trial's result based on participants' baseline characteristics and not on the trial's inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Methods

For each Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participant, the Euclidean distance in six-dimensional space from the theoretical “average” participant was calculated to produce an individual Trial Score that incorporates multiple distinct continuous-variable baseline characteristics. We prospectively defined the “data-rich,” “data-limited,” and “data-free” zones as Trial Scores < 90th percentile, the 90th–97.5th percentile, and >97.5th percentile, respectively. Trial Scores were then calculated for National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants to map data zones of the general population. Individual participant data from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure trial (ACCORD-BP) was used to test if participants further from the average SPRINT participant behave differently than the overall SPRINT results.

Results

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cohort and the ACCORD-BP trial demonstrate large percentages of participants in SPRINT's data-free and data-limited zones. Time-to-event rates seen with intensive and standard blood pressure control in SPRINT were the same as ACCORD-BP participants within SPRINT's data-rich zone (hazard ratio 0.97, p = 0.84 and hazard ratio 0.95, p = 0.70). However, these rates were significantly different than those of ACCORD-BP participants outside SPRINT's data-rich zone (hazard ratio 0.64, p < 0.01 and hazard ratio 0.77, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

ACCORD-BP participants with SPRINT Trial Scores in the 90th percentile or below have similar event rates to SPRINT participants in both the intensive and standard blood pressure groups. Quantifying the difference between an individual patient and the average clinical trial participant holds promise as a tool to more precisely determine applicability of a specific trial to individual patients.

Keywords

Clinical trials blood pressure hypertension

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Group

Wright

Jr Williamson

et al.

A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2103–2116.

Whelton

Carey

Aronow

et al.

2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: e127–e248.

Group

Cushman

Evans

et al.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1575–1585.

Rothwell

. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 2005; 365: 82–93.

Kern

Stuart

Hill

et al.

Assessing methods for generalizing experimental impact estimates to target populations. J Res Educ Eff 2016; 9: 103–127.

Cahan

Cimino

. Computer-aided assessment of the generalizability of clinical trial results. Int J Med Inform 2017; 99: 60–66.

Bress

Tanner

Hess

et al.

Generalizability of SPRINT results to the U.S. adult population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 463–472.

Williams

Mancia

Spiering

et al.

2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 3021–3104.

Bakris

Sorrentino

. Redefining hypertension – assessing the new blood-pressure guidelines. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 497–499.

10.

Vinther

Jacobsen

Jorgensen

. Current European guidelines for management of cardiovascular disease: Is medical treatment in nearly half a population realistic?. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2018; 25: 157–163.