RCTs and real world evidence are complementary, not alternatives

The COOL-AF Phase 2 Registry: COhort of Antithrombotic Use and Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common condition leading to an increased risk of death and complications such as stroke. Even though direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can reduce the risk of ICH, the rate of DOAC use remains low in many Asian countries because of cost concerns.

Objectives

The purpose of this protocol paper of the COOL-AF (COhort of antithrOmbotic use and cLinical outcomes in patients with Atrial Fibrillation) Phase 2 registry is to determine the rate of clinical outcome, changes in antithrombotic patterns, and their impact on clinical outcomes, and to develop a prediction model for clinical outcomes.

Methods

The COOL-AF Phase 2 study is a prospective observational multicenter study of patients with known or newly diagnosed nonvalvular AF in Thailand. The aim is to achieve a sample size of 3,667 patients from 33 centers. Patients will be followed up every 6 months for up to 3 years. Data collection on and doses of oral anticoagulants (warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) and antiplatelets are collected. The study outcomes include death, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and quality of life. All events will be adjudicated.

Results

Enrollment started in June 2024. The results of the COOL-AF phase 2 registry will be reported when enrollment is complete and one year of follow-up data is available.

Conclusions

The COOL-AF Phase 2 trial will provide valuable information about the real-world practice of AF management and outcomes in Asia, which should be able to improve AF outcomes in the future. (COhort of antithrOmbotic Use and cLinical Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [COOL-AF] Phase 2; NCT06396299).

Decades in the Making: The Evolution of Digital Health Research Infrastructure Through Synthetic Data, Common Data Models, and Federated Learning

Traditionally, medical research is based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for interventions such as drugs and operative procedures. However, increasingly, there is a need for health research to evolve. RCTs are expensive to run, are generally formulated with a single research question in mind, and analyze a limited dataset for a restricted period. Progressively, health decision makers are focusing on real-world data (RWD) to deliver large-scale longitudinal insights that are actionable. RWD are collected as part of routine care in real time using digital health infrastructure. For example, understanding the effectiveness of an intervention could be enhanced by combining evidence from RCTs with RWD, providing insights into long-term outcomes in real-life situations. Clinicians and researchers struggle in the digital era to harness RWD for digital health research in an efficient and ethically and morally appropriate manner. This struggle encompasses challenges such as ensuring data quality, integrating diverse sources, establishing governance policies, ensuring regulatory compliance, developing analytical capabilities, and translating insights into actionable strategies. The same way that drug trials require infrastructure to support their conduct, digital health also necessitates new and disruptive research data infrastructure. Novel methods such as common data models, federated learning, and synthetic data generation are emerging to enhance the utility of research using RWD, which are often siloed across health systems. A continued focus on data privacy and ethical compliance remains. The past 25 years have seen a notable shift from an emphasis on RCTs as the only source of practice-guiding clinical evidence to the inclusion of modern-day methods harnessing RWD. This paper describes the evolution of synthetic data, common data models, and federated learning supported by strong cross-sector collaboration to support digital health research. Lessons learned are offered as a model for other jurisdictions with similar RWD infrastructure requirements.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy at the extremes of age: below 5 years and elderly: evidence beyond indications?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) has been used in clinical practice to treat allergic diseases for over 100 years. The effectiveness and safety of AIT have been substantiated in numerous studies; however, children before 5 years of age and elderly are not encompassed generally. This review aims to present the current understanding of AIT in the extremes of age.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early allergen immunotherapy during infancy or early childhood may prevent the development of allergic sensitization to common allergens, thereby reducing the risk of developing allergic diseases later in life. In the elderly, improved symptoms and quality of life and reduced dependence on medication are indicated the importance on the implementation of AIT. Both clinical and immunological parameters demonstrated that the treatment was effective at the time of cessation and trend to sustained tolerance.

SUMMARY

There is no specific lower or upper age limit for initiating immunotherapy; however, it is important to thoroughly evaluate the severity of disease and the risks and benefits in each case.

Key results from observational studies and real-world evidence of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor effectiveness and safety in reducing cardio-renal risk

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, originally designed to manage blood sugar levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), have emerged as a crucial class of drugs for managing cardio-renal diseases. These drugs work by targeting the SGLT2 protein in the kidneys, promoting the excretion of glucose and influencing metabolic pathways beyond glucose control. The relationship between cardio-renal diseases and SGLT2 inhibitors has been explored through landmark trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies, demonstrating significant reductions in cardio-renal complications. This review discusses the importance of RWE studies alongside randomized controlled trials in understanding the real-world effectiveness and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors. It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of RWE compared to RCTs, highlighting their complementary roles in providing comprehensive insights into treatment outcomes. By examining a range of RWE studies, the review underscores the cardio-renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors across various patient populations. Safety assessments indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated, with severe adverse events being rare. Common issues, such as genital mycotic infections and urinary tract infections, are acknowledged, alongside less frequent but significant adverse events including diabetic ketoacidosis, lower-limb amputations, and bone fractures. In summary, SGLT2 inhibitors show promising cardio-renal protective effects in real-world scenarios across diverse populations in T2D, indicating their potential as early intervention measures. Continued research is essential for gaining a thorough understanding of their long-term effects and safety profiles.

Is therapeutic drug monitoring a dancing partner for TNF-α inhibitors in real-world practice? Answers from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNF-αI) in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) based on real-world evidence, as results from published meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not fully capture the nuances of clinical practice due to strict criteria.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 1 August 2023. Cohort studies comparing TDM (proactive and reactive) with empirical management were included. Primary outcome was effectiveness [for IBDs: clinical remission; for rheumatic diseases: clinical remission or low disease activity], with certainty of evidence appraised using the GRADE approach. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, serious adverse events (SAEs), IMIDs-related surgeries or hospitalizations, and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) development risk.

RESULTS

Twenty-four cohort studies were included and almost all were on infliximab. For IBDs, compared with empirical management, proactive TDM significantly improved clinical remission (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.04-1.28), reduced IBDs-related surgeries (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.81), hospitalizations (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.43-0.83), SAEs (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.76), and ADAs development risk (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.19-0.60). Reactive TDM significantly lowered hospitalization rates and might be cost-effective. Proactive TDM outperformed reactive TDM in secondary outcomes. For rheumatic diseases, benefits of TDM were inconclusive due to limited evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world evidence supports proactive TDM of TNF-αI (particularly infliximab) in IBDs to improve effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity. However, benefits of TDM for different TNF-αI in other IMIDs remain uncertain.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/ PROSPERO identifier is CRD42022370846.

Aversion to pragmatic randomised controlled trials: three survey experiments with clinicians and laypeople in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (pRCTs) are essential for determining the real-world safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pRCTs for COVID-19, as well as non-COVID-19, interventions became more positive during the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of pRCTs.

DESIGN

Randomised survey experiments.

SETTING

Geisinger, a network of hospitals and clinics in central and northeastern Pennsylvania, USA; Amazon Mechanical Turk, a research participant platform used to recruit online participants residing across the USA. Data were collected between August 2020 and February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

2149 clinicians (the types of people who conduct or make decisions about conducting pRCTs) and 2909 laypeople (the types of people who are included in pRCTs as patients). The clinician sample was primarily female (81%), comprised doctors (15%), physician assistants (9%), registered nurses (54%) and other medical professionals, including other nurses, genetic counsellors and medical students (23%), and the majority of clinicians (62%) had more than 10 years of experience. The layperson sample ranges in age from 18 to 88 years old (mean=38, SD=13) and the majority were white (75%) and female (56%).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Experiment aversion was defined as the degree to which a participant rated the experiment below their lowest-rated intervention.

RESULTS

In a survey of laypeople administered during the pandemic, we found significant aversion to experiments involving catheterisation checklists and hypertension drugs unrelated to the treatment of COVID-19 (Cohen's d=0.25-0.46, p<0.001). Similarly, among both laypeople and clinicians, we found significant aversion to most (comparing different checklist, proning and mask protocols; Cohen's d=0.17-0.56, p<0.001) but not all (comparing school reopening protocols; Cohen's d=0.03, p=0.64) non-pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments. Interestingly, we found the lowest experiment aversion to pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments (comparing new drugs and new vaccine protocols for treating the novel coronavirus; Cohen's d=0.04-0.12, p=0.12-0.55). Across all vignettes and samples, 28%-57% of participants expressed experiment aversion, whereas only 6%-35% expressed experiment appreciation by rating the trial higher than their highest-rated intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancing evidence-based medicine through pRCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among patients and healthcare professionals.

STUDY REGISTRATION

http://osf.io/6p5c7/.

Comparison of complication rates between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are essential for reliable vascular access in patients. Despite their prevalent use, comparative risk assessments of these catheters, particularly from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), remain scarce. This meta-analysis primarily focuses on RCTs to evaluate and compare the incidence of complications associated with MCs and PICCs. We conducted a comprehensive search of databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus and ProQuest, up to April 2024. The primary outcomes analysed were total complications and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), while secondary outcomes included catheter dwell time and thrombosis incidence. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Of 831 initially identified articles, five trials involving 608 patients met the inclusion criteria. MCs exhibited a significantly higher rate of total complications compared with PICCs (relative risk = 1.95, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-3.08, P=0.005, I2= 0%). MCs also had shorter dwell times and a higher incidence of premature removal. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of CRBSIs or thrombosis between MCs and PICCs. PICCs are associated with fewer total complications and longer dwell times compared with MCs, which tend to be more often removed prematurely. Thrombosis rates were similar between the two catheter types, underscoring the need for careful catheter selection based on specific patient conditions and treatment duration. Further research, particularly additional RCTs, is necessary to confirm these findings and guide optimal catheter selection in clinical practice.

[The application of real-world evidence in drug regulatory decision-making]

Drug regulation is a system to support and protect public health. Drugs with market access must be effective, safe and of high quality. Therefore, drug regulatory decision-making by the competent authorities is made on a scientific basis. Real-world evidence (RWE) from real-world data (RWD) has so far predominantly been taken into account in a supportive manner in drug regulatory decision-making with regard to drug safety after marketing authorisation. The extensive potential of RWE for regulatory decision-making processes along the entire product life cycle has been increasingly used and further examined in recent years.This article provides an overview of current applications of RWE in drug regulatory decision-making processes. The potentials of RWE along with the hurdles to be addressed are described and examples of current projects on RWE research for drug regulation are given. The work is based on current international literature as well as examples from international and European initiatives and regulatory practice, which aim to support an increased use of RWD/RWE in regulatory decision-making processes. In order to be able to utilise the potential of RWE even more in the future, it is important to make relevant RWD sources more readily available through research projects and initiatives, to further develop evaluative methods and to establish the significance of RWE.