Impact of modernizing eligibility criteria on enrollment and representation in acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials

Clinical trial eligibility criteria select a target population and reduce anticipated risks for participants but may unnecessarily limit participation both overall and differently across demographic groups. We previously abstracted eligibility criteria for 190 phase 2/3 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) trials and used US Food and Drug Administration and professional society guidance on modernizing criteria to develop alternative, safety-based eligibility criteria for each trial. In this analysis, these trial- and safety-based eligibility criteria sets were applied to a retrospective cohort of 2226 newly diagnosed patients across 8 hospitals to assess the impact on eligibility. Eligibility proportions increased from a median of 47.9% with trial-based criteria to 84.2% with safety-based criteria (median difference, 30.0%; P< .001); excluding age criteria, the increase was 11.5% (P< .001). Non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, NH Black, NH White, and Hispanic patients were eligible for median proportions of 41.1%, 44.0%, 47.9%, and 50.0%, respectively, with trial-based criteria, increasing by 27.9% to 31.6% when using safety-based criteria (within-group changes, all P< .001; between-group changes, all P> .05). Excluding age criteria, increases were between 10.0% and 11.9%. Moving from trial- to safety-based criteria decreased the proportion of trials with significant eligibility differences between NH White and NH Asian (-11.1%), NH Black (-4.2%), and Hispanic (-12.1%) patients. Criteria significantly associated with increased eligibility and decreased between-group differences in eligibility were coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, aspartate transaminase level, upper age limits, and previous malignancy. These data suggest that modernization of eligibility for AML trials to focus on safety-based criteria can improve both overall enrollment and population representation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2025030741
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.76
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of modernizing eligibility criteria on enrollment and representation in acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials

Amani Erra, Ivy Abraham, Ahmed Aleem, W Stock et al.
2 citations
Blood
Ethics in Clinical Research
3.76
article

Impact of modernizing eligibility criteria on enrollment and representation in acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials

Amani Erra, Ivy Abraham, Ahmed Aleem, W Stock, Madelyn Burkart, Erin Gallagher, Marlise Rachael Luskin, Melissa L. Larson, Jessica K. Altman, Thomas Walsh, Irum Khan, Anand Patel, Ana Maria Avila Rodriguez, Ami Dave, Sarah Monick, Andrew Hantel, Peter Doukas, Hajime Uno, Christopher S. Lathan, Nepheli Raptis, Carlos Galvez, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Ann‐Kathrin Eisfeld, Gregory Alan Abel, Yating Wang, Stephanie Tsai, Angel M. Cronin, Maryam Zia
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Clinical trial eligibility criteria select a target population and reduce anticipated risks for participants but may unnecessarily limit participation both overall and differently across demographic groups. We previously abstracted eligibility criteria for 190 phase 2/3 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) trials and used US Food and Drug Administration and professional society guidance on modernizing criteria to develop alternative, safety-based eligibility criteria for each trial. In this analysis, these trial- and safety-based eligibility criteria sets were applied to a retrospective cohort of 2226 newly diagnosed patients across 8 hospitals to assess the impact on eligibility. Eligibility proportions increased from a median of 47.9% with trial-based criteria to 84.2% with safety-based criteria (median difference, 30.0%; P< .001); excluding age criteria, the increase was 11.5% (P< .001). Non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, NH Black, NH White, and Hispanic patients were eligible for median proportions of 41.1%, 44.0%, 47.9%, and 50.0%, respectively, with trial-based criteria, increasing by 27.9% to 31.6% when using safety-based criteria (within-group changes, all P< .001; between-group changes, all P> .05). Excluding age criteria, increases were between 10.0% and 11.9%. Moving from trial- to safety-based criteria decreased the proportion of trials with significant eligibility differences between NH White and NH Asian (-11.1%), NH Black (-4.2%), and Hispanic (-12.1%) patients. Criteria significantly associated with increased eligibility and decreased between-group differences in eligibility were coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, aspartate transaminase level, upper age limits, and previous malignancy. These data suggest that modernization of eligibility for AML trials to focus on safety-based criteria can improve both overall enrollment and population representation.

BloodVol. 147(6)
Northwestern University (US), Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US), Rush University Medical Center (US), Loyola University Medical Center (US), Ingalls Memorial Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), Loyola University Chicago (US), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (US), University of Illinois Chicago (US), University of Chicago (US), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US), Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Saint Louis University (US), Rush University (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Ethics in Clinical Research
3.76
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.