Interpretation and Impact of Real-World Clinical Data for the Practicing Clinician

Real-world evidence of biological agents in dermatology: A review of its applications, advantages, and limitations

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. However, the disadvantages of RCTs have been well-documented for a lengthy period of time. Due to the carefully controlled conditions, a small group of patients is studied, resulting in a lack of external validity and generalizability. To address this issue, real-world evidence (RWE) has grown in importance as a complement to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We introduce and describe the databases used by RWE in this post. Applications of RWE are described in following aspects with examples of patients in the use of biological agents with skin diseases: (1) support the safety and efficacy outcomes of RCTs; (2) reveal real-world situations of adverse event management; (3) optimal treatment plans; (4) treatment's real-world cost burden. We also focus on its superiority of generalizability, external validity, and time and economic efficiencies as well as its deficiencies in data resources, study design, and statistical methodologies.

Real-world efficacy and safety outcomes of imatinib treatment in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: An Australian experience

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), but patients still experience treatment-limiting toxicities or therapeutic failure. To investigate the real-world use and outcomes of imatinib in patients with CML in Australia, a retrospective cohort study of patients with CML commencing imatinib (2001-2018) was conducted across two sites. Prescribing patterns, tolerability outcomes, and survival and molecular response were evaluated. 86 patients received 89 imatinib treatments. Dose modifications were frequently observed (12-month rate of 58%). At last follow-up, 62 patients (5-year rate of 55%) had permanently discontinued imatinib treatment, of which 44 switched to another TKI (5-year rate of 46%). Within 3 months of starting imatinib, 43% (95% CI, 32%-53%) of patients experienced imatinib-related grade ≥3 adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Higher comorbidity score, lower body weight, higher imatinib starting dose, and Middle Eastern or North African ancestry were associated with a higher risk of grade ≥3 ADR occurrence on multivariable analysis (MVA). Estimated overall survival and event-free survival rates at 3 years were 97% (95% CI, 92%-100%) and 81% (95% CI, 72%-92%), respectively. Cumulative incidence of major molecular response (MMR) at 3 years was 63% (95% CI, 50%-73%). On MVA, imatinib starting dose, ELTS score, BCR-ABL1 transcript type, pre-existing pulmonary disease, and potential drug-drug interactions were predictive of MMR. In conclusion, imatinib induced deep molecular responses that translated to good survival outcomes in a real-world setting, but was associated with a higher incidence of ADRs, dose modifications and treatment discontinuations than in clinical trials.

Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices (MDs) increasingly rely on real-world evidence (RWE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and the quality of the evidence used to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of high risk MDs (Class III) by HTA agencies in Europe (four European HTA agencies and EUnetHTA), with particular focus on RWE. Data were extracted from HTA reports on the type of evidence demonstrating (cost-)effectiveness, and the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. 25 HTA reports were included that incorporated 28 observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Half of the studies (46%) took important confounding and/or effect modifying variables into account in the design and/or analyses. The most common way of including confounders and/or effect modifiers was through multivariable regression analysis. Other methods, such as propensity score matching, were rarely employed. Furthermore, meaningful analyses to test key assumptions were largely omitted. Resulting recommendations from HTA agencies on MDs is therefore (partially) based on evidence which is riddled with uncertainty. Considering the increasing importance of RWE it is important that the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness are systematically assessed when used in decision-making.

Cardiovascular risk profiles: A cross-sectional study evaluating the generalizability of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials REWIND, LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 to the real-world type 2 diabetes population in the United Kingdom

AIMS

To determine the proportion of UK patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who meet the cardiovascular (CV) or combined CV/core eligibility criteria used for the CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of UK-marketed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) showing CV benefit (dulaglutide in REWIND, liraglutide in LEADER and injectable semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults with T2D on/before June 2018 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data (Protocol 19_262). Patient CV and clinical data were evaluated against the CVOT eligibility criteria. Data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

The study cohort (N = 33 118 patients with T2D) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 66.0 (13.3) years and 56.6% were male. Almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the study cohort met the CV criteria for REWIND, versus 43.0% for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of the study cohort who met the CVOT criteria of "established CV disease" and "CV risk factors only" for REWIND were 22.4% and 42.1%, respectively, versus 38.7% and 4.3%, respectively, for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of patients satisfying both CV and core criteria were 44.4% for REWIND, 13.3% for LEADER and 13.5% for SUSTAIN-6. Study findings remained consistent when restricted to GLP-1RA users.

CONCLUSIONS

REWIND captured a trial population more representative of the real-world T2D population in the United Kingdom than LEADER or SUSTAIN-6 with regard to both CV and combined CV/core eligibility criteria.