Abstract
Abstract
Background
Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent.
Methods
We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality.
Results
Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3–24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6–25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March–May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY.
Conclusions
Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates.
Trial registration
ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.
Funder
UK Research and Innovation
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Oxford BHF Centre of Research Excellence
Health Data Research UK
NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
Wellcome Trust
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases
MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference28 articles.
1. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.
2. Good Clinical Trials Collaborative. Good Clinical Trials Collaborative. Guidelines for good randomized clinical trials. 2023. Available from: www.goodtrials.org. Cited 2023 Apr 25.
3. Collins R, Reith C, Emberson J, Armitage J, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. Lancet. 2016;388(10059):2532–61.
4. MacMahon S, Collins R. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies. Lancet. 2001;357(9254):455–62.
5. Collins R, MacMahon S. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9253):373–80.