Real world evidence (RWE) - a disruptive innovation or the quiet evolution of medical evidence generation?

Stakeholders in healthcare are increasingly turning to real world evidence (RWE) to inform their decisions, alongside evidence from randomized controlled trials. RWE is generated by analysing data gathered from routine clinical practice, and can be used across the product lifecycle, providing insights into areas including disease epidemiology, treatment effectiveness and safety, and health economic value and impact. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have stated their ambition for greater use of RWE to support applications for new indications, and are now consulting with their stakeholders to formalize standards and expected methods for generating RWE.

Pharmaceutical companies are responding to the increasing demands for RWE by developing standards and processes for each stage of the evidence generation pathway. Some conventions are already in place for assuring quality, whereas other processes are specific to the research question and data sources available. As evidence generation increasingly becomes a core role of medical affairs divisions in large pharmaceutical companies, standards of rigour will continue to evolve and improve. Senior pharmaceutical leaders can drive this change by making RWE a core element of their corporate strategy, providing top-level direction on how their respective companies should approach RWE for maximum quality.

Here, we describe the current and future areas of RWE application within the pharmaceutical industry, necessary access to data to generate RWE, and the challenges in communicating RWE. Supporting and building on viewpoints from industry and publicly funded research, our perspective is that at each stage of RWE generation, quality will be critical to the impact that RWE has on healthcare decision-makers; not only where RWE is an established and evolving tool, but also in new areas that have the potential to disrupt and to improve drug development pathways.

Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors: Comparing Trial and Real World Use (Study Protocol)

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (gliflozins) are the newest class of medication available to treat type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recent findings from the first complete cardiovascular safety trial in SGLT2 inhibitors, the Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in type 2 diabetes (EMPA-REG OUTCOMES) trial, demonstrated reduced cardiovascular outcomes in people with high cardiovascular risk. How to apply these findings to clinical practice remains unclear, with questions remaining on who will reap this cardiovascular benefit.

AIM

To describe the proportion of people in the real world currently treated with SGLT2 inhibitors who meet the inclusion criteria of the EMPA-REG trial and therefore could expect the cardiovascular benefit identified by the trial. Similarly, to describe the proportion of people from the whole T2DM population who could also expect this same benefit.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Routinely collected data from UK primary care in the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database will be used. The study population will include all people with T2DM within this database (approximately 60,000). We will perform a cross-sectional investigation to describe the characteristics of people currently using SGTL2 inhibitors compared with the population of the EMPA-REG trail. We will similarly compare the characteristics of the RCGP RSC T2DM cohort with the inclusion criteria of the EMPA-REG trial.

METHOD

People with T2DM using a pre-existing verified clinical ontological process will be identified, as will people with prescriptions for SGLT2 inhibitors and other medications using Read coded and other proprietary coding systems. Descriptive statistics will be used to characterise the key clinical characteristics of people with T2DM using SGLT2 inhibitors and to compare these characteristics to people included in EMPA-REG trial; the proportion of people who match the trial criteria will be reported.

PLANNED OUTPUTS

Peer review publication reporting the real world lessons for clinical practice.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Is real world evidence influencing practice? A systematic review of CPRD research in NICE guidances

BACKGROUND

There is currently limited evidence regarding the extent Real World Evidence (RWE) has directly impacted the health and social care systems. The aim of this review is to identify national guidelines or guidances published in England from 2000 onwards which have referenced studies using the governmental primary care data provider the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

METHODS

The methodology recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Four databases were searched and documents of interest were identified through a search algorithm containing keywords relevant to CPRD. A search diary was maintained with the inclusion/exclusion decisions which were performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-five guidance documents were included in the final review (following screening and assessment for eligibility), referencing 43 different CPRD/GPRD studies, all published since 2007. The documents covered 12 disease areas, with the majority (N =7) relevant to diseases of the Central Nervous system (CNS). The 43 studies provided evidence of disease epidemiology, incidence/prevalence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance and health utilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

A slow uptake of RWE in clinical and therapeutic guidelines (as provided by UK governmental structures) was noticed. However, there seems to be an increasing trend in the use of healthcare system data to inform clinical practice, especially as the real world validity of clinical trials is being questioned. In order to accommodate this increasing demand and meet the paradigm shift expected, organisations need to work together to enable or improve data access, undertake translational and relevant research and establish sources of reliable evidence.

Treatment strategies for treatment naïve HIV patients in Germany: evidence from claims data

A recent observational study of HIV patients in Germany suggests that treatment naïve patients that are in a more advanced stage of their disease are more likely to receive a treatment regimen based on a boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) compared with a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor (NNRTI) base regimen. To validate those results we analysed claims data of seven German sickness funds from 2009 to 2012 with approximately 4 million beneficiaries. Patients in a more advanced disease state (CDC class C) had a higher likelihood to receive a PI/r based regime rather than a NNRTI based regimen as their initial treatment. There was also a significant correlation between PI/r based regimen and number of comorbidities but not with age. Our results confirm a highly significant relationship between being in a more severe stage of HIV disease and a PI/r based treatment regimen.