Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. RESULTS: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Global patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma management from diagnosis to death: the BRIDGE Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The global HCC BRIDGE study was a multiregional, large-scale, longitudinal cohort study undertaken to improve understanding of real-life management of patients with HCC, from diagnosis to death. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from January 2005 to September 2012 by chart reviews of eligible patients newly diagnosed with HCC at participating institutions. RESULTS: Forty-two sites in 14 countries contributed final data for 18 031 patients. Asia accounted for 67% of patients, Europe for 20% and North America for 13%. As expected, the most common risk factor was hepatitis C virus in North America, Europe and Japan, and hepatitis B virus in China, South Korea and Taiwan. The most common Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage at diagnosis was C in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, and A in Taiwan and Japan. Across all stages, first HCC treatment was most frequently transarterial chemoembolization in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, percutaneous ethanol injection or radiofrequency ablation in Japan and resection in Taiwan. Survival from first HCC treatment varied significantly by region, with median overall survival not reached for Taiwan and 60, 33, 31, 24 and 23 months for Japan, North America, South Korea, Europe and China respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial results from the BRIDGE study confirm previously reported regional trends in patient demographic characteristics and HCC risk factors, document the heterogeneity of treatment approaches across regions/countries and underscore the need for earlier HCC diagnosis worldwide.

Predictors and Risk Factors of Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To systematically review the literature to identify and categorize the predictors and risk factors for treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Data Sources: Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycNet) and relevant conference sources were searched from inception up to January 24, 2022. The following keywords were used: treatment-resistant depression, depressive disorder, predictors, risk, and biomarkers.Study Selection: All studies that included a definition of TRD were included. A total of 1,686 abstracts were screened, and 57 studies were included in the final data synthesis.Data Extraction: Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for this study.Results: The most frequently reported mental predictors/risk factors were greater symptom severity (9 studies), suicidality (8 studies), and recurrent depression (6 studies). Cardiovascular disease (4 studies), pain (3 studies), and thyroid dysfunction (3 studies) were the most common physical predictors/risk factors, while younger age (7 studies) and female gender (6 studies) were the most common demographic predictors/risk factors. Higher levels of neuroticism appeared twice in the literature. Several articles reported on genetic, biological, and imaging variables, but results were too heterogenous to identify common predictors/risk factors.Conclusions: TRD is a complex disorder with many contributing factors that need to be identified and addressed earlier in the disease course to prevent its development or facilitate better treatment outcomes. Future work should focus on replicating the key predictors/risk factors identified in this review.

Observational study to characterize treatment-resistant depression in Germany, France and the United Kingdom: analysis of real-world data collected through a survey of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes treatment patterns, productivity, healthcare resource utilization and previous episodes of depression for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a quantitative survey was administered to 225 healthcare providers (HCPs) distributed evenly across Germany, France and the UK from July to August 2021. Each HCP was asked to answer based on medical records of five patients with TRD, defined as patients failing to respond to two or more treatments of adequate dose and duration in the same episode of major depressive disorder (MDD), which provided a sample size of 1125 patients. RESULTS: Of the 1125 patients with TRD, 73.2% had two or more previous episodes of MDD, 46.3% had a history of suicidal ideation and 24.8% had attempted suicide. Only 26.8% of patients were employed either full-time or part-time. During the most recent/current TRD episode, 45.5% of patients received five or more lines of treatment, and 46.0% remained on monotherapy. For multiple pharmacological treatments, too many distinct combinations were used to discern trends. Overall, 60.6% of patients had at least one mental health-related hospitalization in the last 12 months; 35.0% had two or more hospitalizations. Half of TRD patients saw a doctor five or more times per year for their depression. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses the knowledge gap about treatment patterns and healthcare utilization in real-world practice for TRD patients in three European countries. It provides data that potentially could inform treatment guideline development and optimize patient-perceived benefits from the treatment of TRD.

Design and rationale of the HCC BRIDGE study in China: a longitudinal, multicenter cohort trial in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of the worldwide cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in China, and this malignancy currently represents the country's second leading cause of cancer death in cities and the leading cause in rural areas. Despite recent advances in the control and management of hepatocellular carcinoma within China, this disease remains a major health care issue. The global HCC BRIDGE study, designed to assess patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma therapy use and associated outcomes across real-world clinical practice, has recently been expanded as a national study in China, allowing a detailed analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma in this important country. METHODS/DESIGN: The global HCC BRIDGE study is a multiregional longitudinal cohort trial including patients newly diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2011, who are receiving treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma via sites in the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. The HCC BRIDGE China national study comprises the portion of the global HCC BRIDGE study conducted within mainland China. Patients will be followed from time of diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (post-January 1, 2005) to time of death or December 31, 2011, whichever comes first. Data will be collected on demographic/clinical characteristics, relevant laboratory values, hepatocellular carcinoma/underlying liver disease treatment, tumor response, adverse events, hospitalizations, and overall survival. The primary study end point is overall survival; secondary end points are disease progression, treatment-limiting adverse events, and treatment failure. RESULTS: At the time of writing, 15 sites have selected for participation across all 7 traditional regions of China (North, North-East, East, South, South-West, North-West, and Central). The anticipated study population from the China national study is approximately 9000 patients. DISCUSSION: Findings from the HCC BRIDGE China national study, the first geographically representative study of hepatocellular carcinoma in China, will contribute to the understanding of patterns of therapy use and related clinical outcomes and will provide further information on continuing unmet needs for hepatocellular carcinoma throughout this important country.

Patterns of initial pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease in the United States.

Data from a mix of employer- and government-funded health plans were used to investigate actual treatment patterns for patients initiating pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease in the United States. Treatment patterns evaluated included type of initial therapy and rates and types of adjunctive and substitute therapies. The study confirms that levodopa remains the most often prescribed initial treatment for Parkinson's disease regardless of age or drug benefit coverage. The widespread use of levodopa in young Parkinson's patients (<65 years) with private insurance may indicate that physicians are not overly concerned about or are not fully aware of the association of levodopa with long-term motor complications. It may also indicate that currently available alternatives to levodopa are not sufficiently effective or well tolerated.

Contribution of hypoglycemia to medical care expenditures and short-term disability in employees with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is the third-most expensive physical health condition among US employees. We sought to evaluate the contribution of hypoglycemia to these costs. METHODS: We studied 2664 employees using insulin for whom medical encounters and short-term disability (STD) records were available. RESULTS: Among these employees, 442 (16.6%) had a diagnosis of hypoglycemia during an average follow-up of 2.5 years. The risk of hospitalization and emergency room visits was increased twofold in this group. Much of this excess was associated with hypoglycemia. The annualized medical cost of hypoglycemia was $3241. Patients with hypoglycemia had 77% more STD days annually. The risk of STD in the week after hypoglycemia was increased fivefold. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that hypoglycemia contributes substantially to medical care utilization and to disability-related work absence among employees using insulin.

The burden of illness associated with psoriasis: cost of treatment with systemic therapy and phototherapy in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization and direct healthcare expenditures among psoriasis patients treated with systemic therapy and phototherapy in the United States. DESIGN: Cohort study using retrospective administrative medical claims. PATIENTS: Psoriasis patients treated with systemic therapy and phototherapy, as well as a matched cohort of non-psoriasis patients. All patients were covered by employer-sponsored insurance between 1 April 1996 and 31 December 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated risk of hospitalization and total annual healthcare expenditures overall and by comorbidity status were compared for persons with psoriasis using systemic therapy or phototherapy and persons without psoriasis. Annualized utilization rates for hospitalizations, and use of emergency department, outpatient physician, outpatient laboratory, and outpatient pharmaceutical services were also compared across the two cohorts. RESULTS: Seventeen percent of psoriasis patients were treated with systemic therapy or phototherapy. Patients with comorbid anemia, carcinoma, diabetes, depression, GI disorders, hepatotoxicity, hypertension, and nephrotoxicity had significantly higher expenditures than non-psoriasis patients with the same comorbidities (p < or =0.05). Elevated risk of hospitalization also contributed to higher expenditures in patients treated with systemic therapy or phototherapy. Limitations of this study include those inherent in using claims data such as dependence on diagnosis coding, the fact that psoriasis severity cannot be determined directly from claims data, confounding comorbidities, and the fact that only direct healthcare expenditures were considered in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Psoriasis patients treated with systemic therapies/phototherapies have significantly more comorbidities and higher mean total healthcare expenditures compared to non-psoriasis patients. Psoriasis patients with selected comorbidities have significantly higher mean total healthcare expenditures compared to non-psoriasis persons with the same comorbidities.