Do disparities between populations in randomized controlled trials and the real world lead to differences in outcomes?. (January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gray, Emma; Norris, Suzanne; Schmitz, Susanne; O'Leary, Aisling
• Is Part Of: Journal of comparative effectiveness research. Volume 6:Number 1(2017)
• Page Start: 65
• Page End: 82
• Publication Date: 2017-01
• Subjects: direct-acting antiviral agents -- effectiveness -- efficacy -- hepatitis C -- observational studies -- randomized controlled trials -- systematic review; Medical care -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Research -- Evaluation -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine, Comparative -- Periodicals; 362.1072
• DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0042
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2042-6305

Abstract

Aim: To conduct a systematic review investigating reasons for the disparity between the efficacy and effectiveness rates reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of direct-acting antiviral treatment regimens licensed for use in genotype1 hepatitis C virus-infected individuals.Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses group.Results: Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the baseline demographics and sustained virological response rates were observed between RCT and observational studies.Conclusion: In order for outcomes from RCTs to be generalizable to the real world, greater consideration needs to be taken to include patient populations that are more representative of those awaiting treatment in the clinical setting.