Synergies From Integrating Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Data Analyses

Enhancing External Control Arm Analyses through Data Calibration and Hybrid Designs

Almost all external control arm analyses to contextualize findings of a single arm trial struggle with two key issues: the lack of baseline randomization, and equally important, the difference in data collection between the experimental arm with its primary data collection, and the external control arm using secondary data. We illustrate the data calibration design to remedy issues arising from differential measurements in the two arms, and discuss the hybrid design that expands an underpowered randomized internal control arm with real-world data to mitigate the lack of randomization of the external control arm. We show how the two approaches fit into an evidence-development strategy that naturally builds on the incremental insights gained.

From the Randomized AMBORA Trial to Clinical Practice: Comparison of Medication Errors in Oral Antitumor Therapy

The randomized AMBORA trial showed that medication errors are frequent in patients treated with oral antitumor therapeutics and that they can be substantially reduced by an intensified clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program. While randomized controlled trials are essential to generate clinical evidence, their generalizability in real-world is not always given. The AMBORA care program was implemented in clinical routine within the AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center (AMBORA Center) at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, allowing a thorough comparison of medication error frequencies and characteristics. Our primary analysis compared data at therapy initiation of new oral antitumor therapeutics from the AMBORA trial intervention group (n = 98) and the AMBORA Center (n = 142). Medication errors involving the oral antitumor therapeutics were twofold higher in real-world compared to the randomized controlled trial (mean 0.83 ± 0.80 per patient vs. 0.41 ± 0.53, P < 0.001). We observed more complex oral antitumor therapeutic regimens, a higher median number of medications, and a higher ECOG status in clinical routine vs. the randomized trial. A high percentage of medication errors was completely solved in both groups (85.7% vs. 88.3%, ns). Medication error characteristics within the complete medication (oral antitumor therapeutics and concomitant medication) were similar in both groups (e.g., patient-related causes, drug-drug/drug-food interactions). Taken together, medication errors were even more frequent in clinical routine than in the randomized controlled trial and a high rate was solved in clinical routine by a clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program.

Lazertinib versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Failing EGFR-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Real-World External Comparator Study

BACKGROUND

Lazertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibit common EGFR mutation and T790M mutation in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. No previous studies have compared lazertinib to platinum-based chemotherapy. We have compared lazertinib with platinum-based chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients after previous EGFR-TKI therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared 200 patients from LASER201, LASER301, and LASER-PMS studies to 334 patients who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy after previous EGFR-TKI from the Samsung Medical Center. After propensity score matching (PSM), we selected 156 patients from each group. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The median follow-up of PFS was 15.61 months in the lazertinib group and 21.67 months in the external control group. The PFS was significantly longer in patients who were treated with lazertinib than those treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (10.97 months vs. 5.10 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29-0.55; p < 0.01) after PSM. Lazertinib showed superior OS (32.23 months vs. 18.73 months; adjusted HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.69; p < 0.001), ORR (64.1% vs. 47.4%), and TTD (11.66 months vs. 6.73 months; adjusted HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.75; p < 0.001) compared to platinum-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Based on this retrospective, external control study, lazertinib has demonstrated significantly better efficacy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. The external controls provide important context to evaluate efficacy in single-arm studies.

High-Dose vs. Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine and Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization or Mortality: Emulating the INVESTED Trial Using Insurance Claims Data

The INVESTED trial did not show benefits of high-dose (HD) vaccine vs. standard-dose (SD) for a primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalization or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-1.15) and its components (all-cause mortality HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.84-1.21, cardiopulmonary hospitalization HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.96-1.16) during three influenza seasons (2016-2019) among participants with recent myocardial infarction or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We emulated INVESTED using Medicare claims data to assess whether the real-world evidence (RWE) study reached similar conclusions. We identified 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched trial-eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years and with prior HHF who received an HD or SD vaccine for the 2016-2019 seasons. We also re-analyzed the INVESTED trial data restricting to participants > 65 years with prior HHF to align eligibility criteria more closely with the RWE study. We compared HRs from the trial and RWE study for the main outcomes. Among 53,393 pairs of PS-matched Medicare beneficiaries, the HD vaccine group showed lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.98) and all-cause mortality (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.91-0.95), and similar risk of cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-1.00), compared with SD. The RWE and trial results were closely concordant after the trial population was limited to participants > 65 years with prior HHF: trial-based results for the primary composite outcome (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.89-1.17), all-cause mortality (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.72-1.16), and cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.18). Although similar to the main trial results, the RWE was closer to the results from trial participants with aligned eligibility criteria. This study affirms the importance of considering different distributions of baseline patient characteristics when comparing trial findings to RWE.

Cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines in the real world.

METHODS

Studies reported on any COVID-19 vaccine-related cardiovascular events in the population aged ≥12 years between 1 January 2020 and 15 June 2022 were included.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Myocarditis risk was mainly seen after the second (risk ratio [RR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59-2.58) and third (RR, 2.02; 95% CI: 1.04-2.91) dose. A total of 5 vaccines were analyzed, among which mRNA-1273 (RR, 3.13; 95% CI: 2.11-4.14) and BNT162b2 (RR, 1.57; 95% CI: 1.30-1.85) vaccines were associated with myocarditis risk. No significant increase in risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.96) or arrhythmia (RR, 0.98) events was observed following vaccination. The risk of cardiovascular events (myocarditis, RR, 8.53; myocardial infarction, RR, 2.59; arrhythmia, RR, 4.47) after SARS-CoV-2 infection was much higher than after vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of myocarditis was observed after COVID-19 vaccination, but it was much lower than that following the SARS-CoV-2 infection. No significant increased risk of myocardial infarction or arrhythmia was found after COVID-19 vaccination.

A Proposal for Value-Based Managed Entry Agreements in an Environment of Technological Change and Economic Challenge for Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

A Framework for Methodological Choice and Evidence Assessment for Studies Using External Comparators from Real-World Data

Several approaches have been proposed recently to accelerate the pathway from drug discovery to patient access. These include novel designs such as using controls external to the clinical trial where standard randomised controls are not feasible. In parallel, there has been rapid growth in the application of routinely collected healthcare ‘real-world’ data for post-market safety and effectiveness studies. Thus, using real-world data to establish an external comparator arm in clinical trials is a natural next step. Regulatory authorities have begun to endorse the use of external comparators in certain circumstances, with some positive outcomes for new drug approvals. Given the potential to introduce bias associated with observational studies, there is a need for recommendations on how external comparators should be best used. In this article, we propose an evaluation framework for real-world data external comparator studies that enables full assessment of available evidence and related bias. We define the principle of exchangeability and discuss the applicability of criteria described by Pocock for consideration of the exchangeability of the external and trial populations. We explore how trial designs using real-world data external comparators fit within the evidence hierarchy and propose a four-step process for good conduct of external comparator studies. This process is intended to maximise the quality of evidence based on careful study design and the combination of covariate balancing, bias analysis and combining outcomes.

Observational research on sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: A real breakthrough?

Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors have attracted the interest of the scientific community following the results from dedicated cardiovascular outcome trials, which demonstrated remarkable reduction in all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular (CV) endpoints with empagliflozin and canagliflozin. These impressive results raised further expectations on real world data from large observational cohort studies. They were designed to address the possible existence of a class effect, and the uncertainty on whether this benefit can be extended from secondary to primary CV prevention of patients with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we collated data from existing observational studies (including the celebrated CVD-REAL cohorts) and critically appraised results and methodological issues with the aim of providing clinical insight, including unsettled aspects, and proposing a research agenda for future investigations.