Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jan-Feb;75(1):21-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.therap.2019.11.007. Epub 2019 Dec 16.

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines

Michel Cucherat  1 , Silvy Laporte  2 , Olivier Delaitre  3 , Jehan-Michel Behier  4 ; participants of Giens XXXV Round Table Clinical Research; Anne d'Andon  5 , Florence Binlich  6 , Serge Bureau  7 , Catherine Cornu  8 , Cécile Fouret  9 , Natalie Hoog Labouret  10 , Bruno Laviolle  11 , Houda Miadi-Fargier  12 , Xavier Paoletti  13 , Matthieu Roustit  14 , Tabassome Simon  15 , Nathalie Varoqueaux  16 , Eric Vicaut  17 , Jérémie Westerloppe  18
Affiliations
Free article
Review

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines

Michel Cucherat et al. Therapie. 2020 Jan-Feb.
Free article

Abstract

Single-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison: test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable.

Keywords: Control group; External control study; Indirect comparison; Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons; Non-comparative; Single-arm study.

PubMed Disclaimer