20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Real world evidence (RWE) – a disruptive innovation or the quiet evolution of medical evidence generation?

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Stakeholders in healthcare are increasingly turning to real world evidence (RWE) to inform their decisions, alongside evidence from randomized controlled trials. RWE is generated by analysing data gathered from routine clinical practice, and can be used across the product lifecycle, providing insights into areas including disease epidemiology, treatment effectiveness and safety, and health economic value and impact. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have stated their ambition for greater use of RWE to support applications for new indications, and are now consulting with their stakeholders to formalize standards and expected methods for generating RWE.

          Pharmaceutical companies are responding to the increasing demands for RWE by developing standards and processes for each stage of the evidence generation pathway. Some conventions are already in place for assuring quality, whereas other processes are specific to the research question and data sources available. As evidence generation increasingly becomes a core role of medical affairs divisions in large pharmaceutical companies, standards of rigour will continue to evolve and improve. Senior pharmaceutical leaders can drive this change by making RWE a core element of their corporate strategy, providing top-level direction on how their respective companies should approach RWE for maximum quality.

          Here, we describe the current and future areas of RWE application within the pharmaceutical industry, necessary access to data to generate RWE, and the challenges in communicating RWE. Supporting and building on viewpoints from industry and publicly funded research, our perspective is that at each stage of RWE generation, quality will be critical to the impact that RWE has on healthcare decision-makers; not only where RWE is an established and evolving tool, but also in new areas that have the potential to disrupt and to improve drug development pathways.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lithium delays progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

            ALS is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder with no effective treatment. In the present study, we found that daily doses of lithium, leading to plasma levels ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 mEq/liter, delay disease progression in human patients affected by ALS. None of the patients treated with lithium died during the 15 months of the follow-up, and disease progression was markedly attenuated when compared with age-, disease duration-, and sex-matched control patients treated with riluzole for the same amount of time. In a parallel study on a genetic ALS animal model, the G93A mouse, we found a marked neuroprotection by lithium, which delayed disease onset and duration and augmented the life span. These effects were concomitant with activation of autophagy and an increase in the number of the mitochondria in motor neurons and suppressed reactive astrogliosis. Again, lithium reduced the slow necrosis characterized by mitochondrial vacuolization and increased the number of neurons counted in lamina VII that were severely affected in saline-treated G93A mice. After lithium administration in G93A mice, the number of these neurons was higher even when compared with saline-treated WT. All these mechanisms may contribute to the effects of lithium, and these results offer a promising perspective for the treatment of human patients affected by ALS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Good practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making

              Abstract Purpose Real‐world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. Methods The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus‐building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations. Results The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. Conclusion The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                25 January 2018
                2018
                : 7
                : 111
                Affiliations
                [1 ]AstraZeneca Academy House, Cambridge, CB2 1PG, UK
                [2 ]AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA
                [3 ]AstraZeneca, Madrid, 28033, Spain
                [4 ]AstraZeneca AB R&D, Mölndal, 431 50, Sweden
                [5 ]AstraZeneca, Luton, LU1 3LU, UK
                [6 ]Oxford PharmaGenesis, Tubney Warren Barn, Tubney, Abingdon, OX13 5QJ, UK
                [1 ]Synergus AB, Stockholm, Sweden
                [1 ]SHYFT Analytics, Waltham, MA, USA
                Author notes

                Competing interests: Sajan Khosla, Robert White, Jesús Medina and Sandra Leonard are employees of AstraZeneca, in the Medical Evidence and Observational Research team. Mario Ouwens is an employee of AstraZeneca in the Advanced Analytics team. Cathy Emmas is an employee of AstraZeneca in the Patient Centricity team. Tim Koder and Gary Male are employees of Oxford PharmaGenesis, whose work on this manuscript has been funded by AstraZeneca.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.13585.1
                6039945
                30026923
                6706d5e5-c3a9-48e8-8f22-a9777d7fe898
                Copyright: © 2018 Khosla S et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 January 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: AstraZeneca
                Development of this manuscript was funded by AstraZeneca; writing was undertaken as part of an internal project by employees of AstraZeneca and Oxford PharmaGenesis.
                Categories
                Opinion Article
                Articles

                real world evidence,drug discovery methods,drug industry methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article