Examining Endpoint Concordance in Clinical Trials and Real-World Clinical Practice to Advance Real-World Evidence Utilization.

Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly contributing to more informed decisions regarding the optimal access to and use of therapeutics to improve patient outcomes. However, in many cases, a disconnect between evidence derived from clinical trials and the RWE that follows market approval impedes the potential value and widespread adoption of RWE to optimize patient care. Collaborators with the Learning Ecosystems Accelerator for Patient-centered, Sustainable innovation (LEAPS), a major project of the Tufts Medical Center [formally Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)] NEW Drug Development ParadIGmS (NEWDIGS) initiative, propose assessing the relationship between efficacy endpoints used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and effectiveness measures that inform treatment decisions within real-world clinical settings as one way to bridge this divide and further leverage RWE to improve care and patient outcomes. This commentary outlines elements of an endpoint concordance study using Rheumatoid Arthritis as a case study. The authors describe the ways in which better understanding of the relationship between effectiveness and RCT endpoints could improve the confidence in and adoption of RWE by both contextualizing existing RWE as well as identifying ways in which to improve the value of RWE in improving care and outcomes.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Compare the Real-World Effectiveness of V-Go versus Standard Delivery of Insulin in Patients with Advanced Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a real-world, community-based practice setting. METHODS: Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI). RESULTS: Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.