Comparability of external and internal control patients for the prospective randomized HOVON-103 trial in older AML patients
- PMID: 40419286
- DOI: 10.1111/bjh.20185
Comparability of external and internal control patients for the prospective randomized HOVON-103 trial in older AML patients
Abstract
Real-world data (RWD) previously contributed to post-marketing regulatory decision-making, but are currently also considered as external controls to single-arm trials. The use of RWD control data may be compromised by methodological issues, urging validation of RWD control cohorts. Two external control cohorts of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia patients, one registered by the HARMONY Alliance (HA) and one by the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), were compared to the control arm of the randomized HOVON-103 trial (H103 controls). All patients, aged >65 years with a WHO performance score of 0-2 (or missing), received standard induction chemotherapy. 1:1 propensity score calliper matching (PSM) was applied to improve comparability, and overall (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were assessed. Fewer data elements were available in external cohorts compared to H103 controls, specifically in the NCR cohort. Baseline characteristics of the external cohorts differed from H103 controls; missing data were also more frequent and predominantly concerned WHO performance score. After PSM, HA patients demonstrated non-significantly different OS and RFS to H103 controls at 2 years (26 ± 4% vs. 31 ± 5%, p = 0.59; 24 ± 5% vs. 30 ± 6%, p = 0.52), while NCR patients had 12% lower OS (28 ± 4% vs. 40 ± 4%, p = 0.21). Validation of external control cohorts is needed before incorporating RWD control data into comparative analyses, as missing data, specifically comorbidities, and residual confounding may limit comparability.
Keywords: acute myeloid leukaemia; clinical trials; external control arm; external controls; non‐randomized studies; real‐world data.
© 2025 The Author(s). British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Sola‐Morales O, Curtis LH, Heidt J, Walsh L, Casso D, Oliveria S, et al. Effectively leveraging RWD for external controls: a systematic literature review of regulatory and HTA decisions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2023;114(2):325–355.
-
- Brown JP, Wing K, Evans SJ, Bhaskaran K, Smeeth L, Douglas IJ. Use of real‐world evidence in postmarketing medicines regulation in the European Union: a systematic assessment of European medicines agency referrals 2013‐2017. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e028133.
-
- Cave A, Kurz X, Arlett P. Real‐world data for regulatory decision making: challenges and possible solutions for Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106(1):36–39.
-
- Jansen MS, Dekkers OM, le Cessie S, Hooft L, Gardarsdottir H, de Boer A, et al. Real‐world evidence to inform regulatory decision making: a scoping review. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024;115(6):1269–1276.
-
- Eichler H‐G, Pignatti F, Schwarzer‐Daum B, Hidalgo‐Simon A, Eichler I, Arlett P, et al. Randomized controlled trials versus real world evidence: neither magic nor myth. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(5):1212–1218.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous