Contemporary Practice and Considerations for Real-World Data Source Identification and Feasibility Assessment.

PURPOSE: There has been rapid growth in the variety and number of real-world data (RWD) sources, as well as the number of regulatory documents that provide guidance for assessing the suitability of RWD sources for pharmacoepidemiology studies. This study aims to assess differences in RWD guidance and variability in current practice for identifying and assessing RWD for studies with regulatory purpose. METHODS: Key criteria for feasibility assessment were mapped against relevant regulatory guidance documents across US, EU, and Asia-Pacific regions. An online survey was designed and deployed to International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology members to understand current practice. Findings were summarized and used to inform key considerations and recommendations. RESULTS: Eleven RWD guidance documents were identified and mapped against 14 RWD assessment criteria. Variability was seen across these documents in guidance for these criteria. Between December 2022 and January 2023, 37 survey respondents reported having used RWD for post-marketing commitments (34, 92%) and/or background epidemiology (28, 76%). RWD were mostly identified through literature (33, 89%) and data landscaping (26, 70%); guidance documents referenced included: Food and Drug Administration (20, 54%), European Network for Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (17, 46%), European Medical Agency (16, 43%), and Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (11, 30%). Challenges for conducting feasibility assessments included RWD accessibility, ability to complete validation, and RWD provider responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidelines are used extensively by researchers, but key criteria for RWD identification and feasibility assessment are not reflected consistently and challenges remain. Recommendations have been made reflecting study findings.

Safety outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept: results from a multinational surveillance study across seven European registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and malignancy compared with the general population. Infection risk is increased further with the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), whereas evidence on whether the use of biologic DMARDs increases cancer risk remains equivocal. This single-arm, post-marketing study estimated the incidence of prespecified infection and malignancy outcomes in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept. METHODS: Data were included from seven European RA quality registries: ATTRA (Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Czech Republic]), DANBIO (Danish Rheumatologic Database), ROB-FIN (National Registry of Antirheumatic and Biological Treatment in Finland), ORA (Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis [France]), GISEA (Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis), BIOBADASER (Spanish Register of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases), and the SCQM (Swiss Clinical Quality Management) system. Each registry is unique with respect to design, data collection, definition of the study cohort, reporting, and validation of outcomes. In general, registries defined the index date as the first day of abatacept treatment and reported data for infections requiring hospitalization and overall malignancies; data for other infection and malignancy outcomes were not available for every cohort. Abatacept exposure was measured in patient-years (p-y). Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 1000 p-y of follow-up with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over 5000 patients with RA treated with abatacept were included. Most patients (78-85%) were female, and the mean age range was 52-58 years. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent across registries. Among patients treated with abatacept, IRs for infections requiring hospitalization across the registries ranged from 4 to 100 events per 1000 p-y, while IRs for overall malignancy ranged from 3 to 19 per 1000 p-y. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity between registries in terms of design, data collection, and ascertainment of safety outcomes, as well as the possibility of under-reporting of adverse events in observational studies, the safety profile of abatacept reported here was largely consistent with previous findings in patients with RA treated with abatacept, with no new or increased risks of infection or malignancy.