Feasibility of Using Real-World Data to Replicate Clinical Trial Evidence

被引:159
|
作者
Bartlett, Victoria L. [3 ]
Dhruva, Sanket S. [4 ,5 ]
Shah, Nilay D. [6 ]
Ryan, Patrick [7 ,8 ]
Ross, Joseph S. [1 ,2 ,9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Yale Sch Med, Sect Gen Internal Med, POB 208093, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] Yale Sch Med, Natl Clinician Scholars Program, POB 208093, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[3] Yale Sch Med, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco Sch Med, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] San Francisco Vet Affairs Hlth Care Syst, Sect Cardiol, San Francisco, CA USA
[6] Mayo Clin, Div Hlth Care Policy & Res, Rochester, MN USA
[7] Janssen Res & Dev, Epidemiol Analyt, Titusville, NJ USA
[8] Columbia Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, OHDSI, Med Ctr, New York, NY USA
[9] Yale Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[10] Yale New Haven Med Ctr, 20 York St, New Haven, CT 06504 USA
关键词
MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; ACCURACY; EVENTS; CLAIMS; US;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12869
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Although randomized clinical trials are considered to be the criterion standard for generating clinical evidence, the use of real-world evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions is gaining interest. Whether observational data can be used to address the same clinical questions being answered by traditional clinical trials is still unclear. OBJECTIVE To identify the number of clinical trials published in high-impact journals in 2017 that could be feasibly replicated using observational data from insurance claims and/or electronic health records (EHRs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional analysis, PubMed was searched to identify all US-based clinical trials, regardless of randomization, published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, in the top 7 highest-impact general medical journals of 2017. Trials were excluded if they did not involve human participants, did not use end points that represented clinical outcomes among patients, were not characterized as clinical trials, and had no recruitment sites in the United States. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were the number and percentage of trials for which the intervention, indication, trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary end points could be ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. RESULTS Of the 220 US-based trials analyzed, 33 (15.0%) could be replicated using observational data because their intervention, indication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary end points could be routinely ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. Of the 220 trials, 86 (39.1%) had an intervention that could be ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. Among the 86 trials, 62 (72.1%) had an indication that could be ascertained. Forty-five (72.6%) of 62 trials had at least 80% of inclusion and exclusion criteria data that could be ascertained. Of these 45 studies, 33 (73.3%) had at least 1 primary end point that could be ascertained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that only 15% of the US-based clinical trials published in high-impact journals in 2017 could be feasibly replicated through analysis of administrative claims or EHR data. This finding suggests the potential for real-world evidence to complement clinical trials, both by examining the concordance between randomized experiments and observational studies and by comparing the generalizability of the trial population with the real-world population of interest.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Data Science Methods for Real-World Evidence Generation in Real-World Data
    Liu, Fang
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOMEDICAL DATA SCIENCE, 2024, 7 : 201 - 224
  • [12] IDELVION: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data
    Escobar, Miguel
    Mancuso, Maria Elisa
    Hermans, Cedric
    Leissinger, Cindy
    Seifert, Wilfried
    Li, Yanyan
    McKeand, William
    Oldenburg, Johannes
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (04)
  • [13] Trial Emulation and Real-World Evidence
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2021, 4 (03)
  • [14] A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR SYNTHETIC REPLICATION OF CLINICAL TRIAL COHORTS USING RETROSPECTIVE REAL-WORLD AND CLINICAL TRIAL DATA
    Galaznik, A.
    Berger, M.
    Lempernesse, B.
    Ransom, J.
    Shilnikova, A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S250 - S250
  • [15] Editorial: Real-world data and real-world evidence in lung cancer
    Gristina, Valerio
    Eze, Chukwuka
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2024, 14
  • [16] Editorial: Real-world data and real-world evidence in hematologic malignancies
    Malagola, Michele
    Ohgami, Robert
    Greco, Raffaella
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [17] When can real-world data generate real-world evidence?
    Rahman, Motiur
    Dal Pan, Gerald
    Stein, Peter
    Levenson, Mark
    Kraus, Stefanie
    Chakravarty, Aloka
    Rivera, Donna R.
    Forshee, Richard
    Concato, John
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2024, 33 (01)
  • [18] Perampanel monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy: Clinical trial and real-world evidence
    Yamamoto, Takamichi
    Gil-Nagel, Antonio
    Wheless, James W.
    Kim, Ji Hyun
    Wechsler, Robert T.
    EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR, 2022, 136
  • [19] ASSESSMENT OF REAL-WORLD DATA SOURCES AND A HYBRID APPROACH IN REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE GENERATION USING UNHARMONIZED DATA SOURCES
    Toh, K. C.
    Goh, C. H.
    Goh, V
    Dong, Z.
    Dumpala, L. S.
    Maity, S.
    Wu, J. Y.
    Kleinman, N.
    Lee, Y.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2024, 27 (06) : S407 - S407
  • [20] Using real-world data for supporting regulatory decision making: Comparison of cardiovascular and safety outcomes of an empagliflozin randomized clinical trial versus real-world data
    Jang, Ha Young
    Kim, In-Wha
    Oh, Jung Mi
    FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 13