scholarly journals Real-World or Controlled Clinical Trial Data in Real-World Practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Hui Wu ◽  
James Chih-Hsin Yang
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 837-850
Author(s):  
Nimish Patel ◽  
Jeannette Bouchard ◽  
Meredith B. Oliver ◽  
Melissa E. Badowski ◽  
Joseph J. Carreno ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 2276-2277
Author(s):  
Judy C. Boughey ◽  
Amanda B. Francescatti ◽  
Ko Un Park ◽  
Kelly K. Hunt

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S250
Author(s):  
A. Galaznik ◽  
M. Berger ◽  
B. Lempernesse ◽  
J. Ransom ◽  
A. Shilnikova

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5074-5074
Author(s):  
Harshraj Leuva ◽  
Mengxi Zhou ◽  
Julia Wilkerson ◽  
Keith Sigel ◽  
Ta-Chueh Hsu ◽  
...  

5074 Background: Novel assessments of efficacy are needed to improve determination of treatment outcomes in clinical trials and in real-world settings. Methods: Cancer treatments usually lead to concurrent regression and growth of the drug-sensitive and drug-resistant fractions of a tumor, respectively. We have exploited novel methods of analysis that assess these two simultaneous processes and have estimated rates of tumor growth ( g) and regression ( d) in over 30,000 patients (pts) with diverse tumors. Results: In prostate cancer (PC) we have analyzed both clinical trial and real-world data from Veterans. Using clinical trial data from 6819 pts enrolled in 15 treatment arms we have established separately and by combining all the data that g correlates highly (p<0.0001) with overall survival (OS) – slower g associated with better OS. In PC, abiraterone (ABI) and docetaxel (DOC) are superior to placebo, prednisone and mitoxantrone. ABI (median g =0.0017) is superior to DOC ( g=0.0021) in first line (p=0.0013); and ABI in 2nd line ( g=0.0034) is inferior to ABI in 1st line ( g=0.0017; p<0.0001). Finally, using combined clinical trial data as a benchmark we could assess the efficacy of novel therapies in as few as 30-40 patients. Amongst 7457 Veterans, the median g on a taxane ( g=0.0022) was similar to that from clinical trials ( g=0.0012). Although only 258 Veterans received cabazitaxel (CAB), g values for CAB ( g=0.0018) and DOC ( g=0.0023) were indistinguishable (p=0.3) consistent with their identical mechanism of action. Finally, outcomes with DOC in African American (AA) ( g=0.00212) and Caucasian ( g=0.00205) Veterans were indistinguishable (p=0.9) and comparable across all VAMCs. Conclusions: The rate of tumor growth, g, is an excellent biomarker for OS both in clinical trials and in real-world settings. g allows comparisons between trials and for large trial data sets to be used as benchmarks of efficacy. Real-world outcomes in the VAMCs are similar to those in clinical trials. In the egalitarian VAMCs DOC efficacy in PC is comparable in AA and Caucasian Veterans -- indicating inferior outcomes reported in AAs are likely due to differential health care access, not differences in biology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17095-e17095
Author(s):  
Iris Yeong- Fung Sheng ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Kunal Desai ◽  
Kimberly D. Allman ◽  
Allison Martin ◽  
...  

e17095 Background: sRCC have a generally poor prognosis though recent clinical trial data suggest improved outcomes with CPI. We present a real-world experience of metastatic sRCC patients (pts) treated with a variety of CPI. Methods: Pts with sRCC treated with CPI Cleveland Clinic from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019 were identified. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and compared by log rank test. Results: Of 28 eligible pts identified with sRCC, median age 58, 82% Caucasian, all KPS score > 80%, 86% had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, 75% were clear cell, and 71% had prior nephrectomy. 46.4% had prior non-CPI systemic therapy. CPI therapy in this cohort included: 46% nivolumab monotherapy, 18% axitinib/pembrolizumab, 21% ipilimumab/nivolumab, 4% atezolizumab/bevacizumab, 7% atezolizumab, 4% carboplatin/pemetrexed/pembrolizumab. At a median follow up of 13.6 months (range 6.5-31.4), ORR was 36% (4% CR, 32% PR) and median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.23-NA). Median time to response was 3.2 months (range 2.4-13.1) and median duration of response was 8.1 months (range 0-25.5). Ten of the 13 patients started subsequent therapy due to progression. At the time of analysis, 39% were still alive and 25% of patients were still on initial I/O therapy (7+ -30+ months). There were no clear correlations between specific disease-related factors (including IMDC risk, time-to treatment of > or < 1 year, or prior systemic therapy) and response (all were p > 0.05). Conclusions: ORR and CR rates were lower in this real-world population of metastatic sRCC pts compared to clinical trial data, which should be a result of various CPI treatments and lines of treatment. However, these data highlight the heterogeneity of sRCC in general and need for additional investigations into impact of percentage of sarcomatoid features, genomic analyses, line of therapy, and CPI choice to optimize outcomes in sRCC pts.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 687-687
Author(s):  
Alpesh N Amin ◽  
Amanda Bruno ◽  
Jeffrey Trocio ◽  
Jay Lin ◽  
Melissa Lingohr-Smith

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials have demonstrated that the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban are noninferior to standard therapies for treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). We have previously published the medical costs avoided when NOACs are used instead of standard therapies based on rates of clinical events reported in clinical trials. However, the rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) in the real-world settings may differ from those from the clinical trials. In this study, we estimated the real-world medical cost avoidance from a U.S. payer perspective when NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for the treatment of patients with VTE. Methods: Reduction of real-world event rates of recurrent VTE and MB were obtained by applying rate reductions observed in clinical studies to the Worcester population. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with VTE and MB from a U.S. payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical endpoints for patients treated with NOACs vs. standard therapy were then estimated. One-way univariate and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were additionally carried out. Univariate analysis varied the estimates of the clinical event rates between the ranges of confidence intervals and the estimates of event costs ±30% when such confidence intervals were not reported. Ten thousand cycles of Monte-Carlo simulations were used for additional sensitivity analysis where all model parameters were allowed to vary simultaneously. Results: Real-world event rates of recurrent VTE and MB in the Worcester VTE study were 11.2% and 10.8% respectively. Differences in real-world event rates of recurrent VTE among VTE patients treated with NOACs instead of standard therapy were estimated at -1.80% for apixaban, -1.23% for rivaroxaban, -2.02% for edoxaban, and 1.02% for dabigatran. Differences in real-world event rates of MB among VTE patients treated with NOACs instead of standard therapy were estimated at -7.48% for apixaban, -4.97% for rivaroxaban, -1.73% for edoxaban, and -2.57% for dabigatran. Based on the real-world data, the annual total medical cost avoidances vs. standard therapy were greatest for VTE patients treated with apixaban (-$4,440 per patient year-ppy), followed by those treated with rivaroxaban (-$2,971 ppy), edoxaban (-$1,957 ppy), and dabigatran (-$572 ppy). In comparison to data previously reported based on clinical trials, these medical cost avoidances are substantially greater for any of the NOACs vs. standard therapy (Table). The medical cost avoidances remained consistent under univariate (one-way) sensitivity. Additionally, the mean cost estimates of 10,000 random cycles of Monte-Carlo simulations for each of the NOACs were similar to the default estimated medical cost avoidances, demonstrating the robustness of the model estimates. Conclusions: Based on real-world data, when any of the evaluated NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for treatment of patients with acute VTE annual medical costs are reduced. In the real-world setting, the use of NOACs vs. standard therapy is predicted to be associated with even greater annual medical cost reductions than that previously estimated based on clinical trial data. Of the NOACs, apixaban has the greatest real-world medical cost avoidance, as its use is associated with substantial reductions in both VTE and MB event rates. Abstract 687. Table 1 Estimates of Medical Cost Differences Among VTE Patients Treated with NOACs vs. Standard Therapy Based on Clinical Trial Data vs. Real-World Data Outcome Apixaban ($/patient-yr) Rivaroxaban ($/patient-yr) Edoxaban ($/patient-yr) Dabigatran ($/patient-yr) Recurrent VTE* Clinical trial data -$252 -$132 -$197 $114 Real-world data -$1,047 -$717 -$1,173 $595 Major bleedings* Clinical trial data -$572 -$354 -$109 -$195 Real-world data -$3,392 -$2,254 -$784 -$1,167 Total Medical Cost* Clinical trial data -$824 -$486 -$306 -$80 Real-world data -$4,440 -$2,971 -$1,957 -$572 *Negative values mean the NOAC is associated with lower total medical cost vs. standard therapy. Disclosures Amin: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Apixaban and edoxaban for the indication of VTE. Bruno:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trocio:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lin:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lingohr-Smith:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document