Real-World Evidence to Inform Regulatory Decision Making: A Scoping Review.

Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly considered in regulatory decision making. When, and to which extent, RWE is considered relevant by regulators likely depends on many factors. This review aimed to identify factors that make RWE necessary or desirable to inform regulatory decision making. A scoping review was conducted using literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and websites of regulatory agencies, health technology assessment agencies, research institutes, and professional organizations involved with RWE. Articles were included if: (1) they discussed factors or contexts that impact whether RWE could be necessary or desirable in regulatory decision making; (2) focused on pharmacological or biological interventions in humans; and (3) considered decision making in Europe or North America, or without a focus on a specific region. We included 118 articles in the scoping review. Two major themes and six subthemes were identified. The first theme concerns questions addressable with RWE, with subthemes epidemiology and benefit-risk assessment. The second theme concerns contextual factors, with subthemes feasibility, ethical considerations, limitations of available evidence, and disease and treatment-specific aspects. Collectively, these themes encompassed 43 factors influencing the need for RWE in regulatory decisions. Although single factors may not make RWE fully necessary, their cumulative influence could make RWE essential and pivotal in regulatory decision making. This overview contributes to ongoing discussions emphasizing the nuanced interplay of factors influencing the necessity or desirability of RWE to inform regulatory decision making.

Influence of study characteristics, methodological rigour and publication bias on efficacy of pharmacotherapy in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

QUESTION: We examined the effect of study characteristics, risk of bias and publication bias on the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic search of double-blinded, placebo-controlled, short-term RCTs with selective serotonergic reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or clomipramine. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis using change in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) as the primary outcome. We performed meta-regression for risk of bias, intervention, sponsor status, number of trial arms, use of placebo run-in, dosing, publication year, age, severity, illness duration and gender distribution. Furthermore, we analysed publication bias using a Bayesian selection model. FINDINGS: We screened 3729 articles and included 21 studies, with 4102 participants. Meta-analysis showed an effect size of -0.59 (Hedges' G, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.46), equalling a 4.2-point reduction in the YBOCS compared with placebo. The most recent trial was performed in 2007 and most trials were at risk of bias. We found an indication for publication bias, and subsequent correction for this bias resulted in a depleted effect size. In our meta-regression, we found that high risk of bias was associated with a larger effect size. Clomipramine was more effective than SSRIs, even after correcting for risk of bias. After correction for multiple testing, other selected predictors were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal superiority of clomipramine over SSRIs, even after adjusting for risk of bias. Effect sizes may be attenuated when considering publication bias and methodological rigour, emphasising the importance of robust studies to guide clinical utility of OCD pharmacotherapy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023394924.