Advancing the Role of Real-world Evidence in Comparative Effectiveness Research

Overview

Journal J Comp Eff Res

Specialty Health Services

Date 2024 Oct 11

PMID 39392412

Authors

Monica Daigl

Seye Abogunrin

Felipe Castro

Sarah F McGough

Rachele Hendricks Sturrup

Cornelis Boersma

Keith R Abrams

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is essential for making informed decisions about drug access. It provides insights into the effectiveness and safety of new drugs compared with existing treatments, thereby guiding better healthcare decisions and ensuring that new therapies meet the real-world needs of patients and healthcare systems. To provide a tool that assists analysts and decision-makers in identifying the most suitable analytical approach for answering a CER question, given specific data availability contexts. A systematic literature review of the scientific literature was performed and existing regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) guidance were evaluated to identify and compare recommendations and best practices. Based on this review a methods flowchart that synthesizes current practices and requirements was proposed. The review did not find any papers that clearly identified the most appropriate analytical approach for answering CER questions under various conditions. Therefore, a methods flowchart was designed to inform analyst and decision makers choices starting from a well-defined scientific question. The proposed methods flowchart offers clear guidance on CER methodologies across a range of settings and research needs. It begins with a well-defined research question and considers multiple feasibility aspects related to CER. This tool aims to standardize methods, ensure rigorous and consistent research quality and promote a culture of evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.

References

Berger M, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson M . Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task.... Value Health. 2009; 12(8):1044-52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00600.x. View

Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, Garritty C, Coleman C, Lux L . Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(11):1208-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011. View

Austin P . Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009; 28(25):3083-107. PMC: 3472075. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697. View

Luce B, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann P, Schwartz J, Siebert U . EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010; 88(2):256-76. PMC: 2980346. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00598.x. View

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

Wang S, Schneeweiss S, Gagne J, Evers T, Gerlinger C, Desai R . Using Real-World Data to Extrapolate Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018; 105(5):1156-1163. PMC: 6438758. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1210. View

Sox H, Greenfield S . Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(3):203-5. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00125. View

Nicotera G, Sferrazza G, Serafino A, Pierimarchi P . The Iterative Development of Medicines Through the European Medicine Agency's Adaptive Pathway Approach. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019; 6:148. PMC: 6610487. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00148. View

Patsopoulos N . A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011; 13(2):217-24. PMC: 3181997. View

10.

Phillippo D, Dias S, Ades A, Belger M, Brnabic A, Schacht A . Multilevel network meta-regression for population-adjusted treatment comparisons. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2020; 183(3):1189-1210. PMC: 7362893. DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12579. View

11.

Nishioka K, Makimura T, Ishiguro A, Nonaka T, Yamaguchi M, Uyama Y . Evolving Acceptance and Use of RWE for Regulatory Decision Making on the Benefit/Risk Assessment of a Drug in Japan. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021; 111(1):35-43. PMC: 9290512. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2410. View

12.

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. PMC: 6617710. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1426. View

13.

Baron J . Evolution of clinical research: A history before and beyond James Lind. Perspect Clin Res. 2013; 3(4):149. PMC: 3530985. DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.103599. View

14.

Doebele R, Perez L, Trinh H, Martinec M, Martina R, Riehl T . Comparative effectiveness analysis between entrectinib clinical trial and crizotinib real-world data in + NSCLC. J Comp Eff Res. 2021; 10(17):1271-1282. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0131. View

15.

Tugwell P, Knottnerus J . Is the 'Evidence-Pyramid' now dead?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(11):1247-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.001. View

16.

Li G, Taljaard M, van den Heuvel E, Levine M, Cook D, Wells G . An introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. Int J Epidemiol. 2016; 46(2):746-755. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw320. View

17.

Alemayehu D, Cappelleri J . Revisiting issues, drawbacks and opportunities with observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 19(4):579-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01802.x. View

18.

Turner A, Sammon C, Latimer N, Adamson B, Beal B, Subbiah V . Transporting Comparative Effectiveness Evidence Between Countries: Considerations for Health Technology Assessments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 42(2):165-176. PMC: 10811184. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01323-1. View

19.

Thompson S, Higgins J . How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1559-73. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1187. View

20.

Bucher H, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S . The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(6):683-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00049-8. View