Generalizability in two clinical trials of Lyme disease.

Daniel J Cameron
{"title":"Generalizability in two clinical trials of Lyme disease.","authors":"Daniel J Cameron","doi":"10.1186/1742-5573-3-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the generalizability of two National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with chronic Lyme disease and to determine whether selection factors resulted in the unfavorable outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Epidemiologic review of the generalizability of two trials conducted by Klempner et al. This paper considers whether the study group was representative of the general chronic Lyme disease population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In their article in The New England Journal of Medicine, Klempner et al. failed to discuss the limitations of their clinical trials. This epidemiologic review argues that their results are not generalizable to the overall Lyme disease population. The treatment failure reported by the authors may be the result of enrolling patients who remained ill after an average of 4.7 years and an average of 3 previous courses of treatment. The poor outcome cited in these trials may be explained by having selected patients who had undergone delayed treatment or multiple treatments unsuccessfully. These selection factors were not addressed by the studies' authors, nor have they been discussed by reviewers. The trials have been over-interpreted by the NIH and widely publicized in a press release. The results have been extrapolated to other groups of Lyme disease patients by commentators, by a case discussant in an influential medical journal, and by health insurance companies to deny antibiotic treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Klempner et al. trials are assumed to be internally valid based on a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) design. However, this review argues that the trials have limited generalizability beyond the select group of patients with characteristics like those in the trial. Applying the findings to target populations with characteristics that differ from those included in these trials is inappropriate and may limit options for chronic Lyme disease patients who might benefit from antibiotic treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":87082,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","volume":"3 ","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1742-5573-3-12","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-3-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

Objective: To examine the generalizability of two National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with chronic Lyme disease and to determine whether selection factors resulted in the unfavorable outcomes.

Design: Epidemiologic review of the generalizability of two trials conducted by Klempner et al. This paper considers whether the study group was representative of the general chronic Lyme disease population.

Results: In their article in The New England Journal of Medicine, Klempner et al. failed to discuss the limitations of their clinical trials. This epidemiologic review argues that their results are not generalizable to the overall Lyme disease population. The treatment failure reported by the authors may be the result of enrolling patients who remained ill after an average of 4.7 years and an average of 3 previous courses of treatment. The poor outcome cited in these trials may be explained by having selected patients who had undergone delayed treatment or multiple treatments unsuccessfully. These selection factors were not addressed by the studies' authors, nor have they been discussed by reviewers. The trials have been over-interpreted by the NIH and widely publicized in a press release. The results have been extrapolated to other groups of Lyme disease patients by commentators, by a case discussant in an influential medical journal, and by health insurance companies to deny antibiotic treatment.

Conclusion: The Klempner et al. trials are assumed to be internally valid based on a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) design. However, this review argues that the trials have limited generalizability beyond the select group of patients with characteristics like those in the trial. Applying the findings to target populations with characteristics that differ from those included in these trials is inappropriate and may limit options for chronic Lyme disease patients who might benefit from antibiotic treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
莱姆病两项临床试验的普遍性。
目的:探讨两项美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的慢性莱姆病患者双盲随机安慰剂对照临床试验的普遍性,并确定选择因素是否导致了不良结果。设计:对Klempner等人进行的两项试验的普遍性进行流行病学回顾。本文考虑该研究组是否代表一般慢性莱姆病人群。结果:在《新英格兰医学杂志》的文章中,Klempner等人没有讨论其临床试验的局限性。这篇流行病学综述认为,他们的结果不能推广到整个莱姆病人群。作者报告的治疗失败可能是入组的患者在平均4.7年和平均3个治疗疗程后仍然患病的结果。这些试验中引用的不良结果可能是由于选择了接受延迟治疗或多次治疗失败的患者。这些选择因素没有被研究的作者提及,也没有被审稿人讨论。这些试验被美国国立卫生研究院过度解读,并在新闻发布会上被广泛宣传。评论员、某有影响力的医学杂志上的病例讨论专家以及健康保险公司都将研究结果外推到其他莱姆病患者群体,以拒绝抗生素治疗。结论:基于随机对照试验(RCT)设计,Klempner等人的试验被认为是内部有效的。然而,这篇综述认为,除了具有试验中那些特征的选定患者组之外,这些试验的推广能力有限。将这些发现应用于与这些试验中所包括的特征不同的目标人群是不合适的,并且可能限制可能受益于抗生素治疗的慢性莱姆病患者的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extending the sufficient component cause model to describe the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). Use of the integrated health interview series: trends in medical provider utilization (1972-2008). Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology. The use of complete-case and multiple imputation-based analyses in molecular epidemiology studies that assess interaction effects. Attributing the burden of cancer at work: three areas of concern when examining the example of shift-work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1