Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. PURPOSE: Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated. METHODS: A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice. RESULTS: This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

Computer clinical decision support that automates personalized clinical care: a challenging but needed healthcare delivery strategy.

How to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

A Useful and Sustainable Role for N-of-1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem.

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2 N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials.

Enabling a learning healthcare system with automated computer protocols that produce replicable and personalized clinician actions.

Clinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention-the starting point for delivery of "All the right care, but only the right care," an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice.

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In "efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials," if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an "efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial." Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.

Recommendations for an update of 2003 European regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of RA.

Since 2003, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, 'Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis' has provided guidance for the clinical development of both biologic and non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In the last few years, several new products have been developed or are in development for the treatment of RA, which offer significant efficacy with regard to disease control, including prevention of structural damage and disability. Concurrently, novel insights have been gained with respect to the assessment of disease activity, joint damage and disability. New treatment strategies have been established which relate to early therapy, tight control and rapid switching of medication. Accordingly, several new EULAR/ACR recommendations have been or are being developed. Several important additions and changes are needed in the 2003 guidance to incorporate the current scientific knowledge into clinical trial design for the development of future products. Under the auspices of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES), a group of experts in the field of RA and clinical trial design met to provide a consensus recommendation for an update to the 2003 EMA guidance document.

The role of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in improving translational medicine.

The approval of new medicines has slowed significantly over the past years. In order to accelerate the development of new compounds, novel approaches in drug development are required. Translational medicine or research, an emerging discipline on the frontier of basic science and medical practice, has the potential to enhance the speed and efficiency of the drug development process through the utilization of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenetics is the study of genetic causes of individual variations in drug response whereas pharmacogenomics deals with the simultaneous impact of multiple mutations in the genome that may determine the patient's response to drug therapy. The utilization of these methods in the drug development process may therefore identify patient sub-populations that exhibit more effective responses and/or an improved benefit/risk profile upon treatment. The authors provide examples of the use of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in the fields of cardiovascular, pulmonary, oncological, and bone diseases and also highlight the potential economic value of their development.

Recommendations for the registration of agents to be used in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: updated recommendations from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.

OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to be used in the treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Consensus discussion of the committee. RESULTS: With the exception of steroid use posttransplantation, there is no need to differentiate between underlying diseases. Prevention and treatment for GIOP are dependent on exposure to glucocorticoids rather than T-scores as in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). If fracture data are obtained for PMO, it need not be repeated for GIOP, relying instead on bone mineral density (BMD) trials of at least 1 year. GREES recommends several changes in the previous guidance for GIOP. The committee saw no need to repeat preclinical studies if those have been previously done to assure bone quality in PMO. Similarly, phase I and phase II trials, if careful dose selection has been done for PMO, should not be repeated. The "prevention" and "treatment" claims should remain. Since the most recent evidence suggests significant increase in fracture risk for daily doses of prednisone of 5 mg/day or equivalent, clinical trials should concentrate on patients receiving at least this daily dosage. The emergence of bisphosphonates as the reference treatment, together with the rapid bone loss and high fracture incidence in glucocorticoid users, necessitates recommending a noninferiority trial design with lumbar spine BMD as the primary endpoint after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of new chemical entities to be used in the management of GIOP should be granted, based on a 1-year noninferiority trial, using BMD as primary outcome and alendronate or risedronate as comparator. Demonstration of antifracture efficacy should have been previously demonstrated in PMO.