Real-World Evidence: A Primer.

SUMMARY: The insights that real-world data (RWD) can provide, beyond what can be learned within the traditional clinical trial setting, have gained enormous traction in recent years. RWD, which are increasingly available and accessible, can further our understanding of disease, disease progression, and safety and effectiveness of treatments with the speed and accuracy required by the health care environment and patients today. Over the decades since RWD were first recognized, innovation has evolved to take real-world research beyond finding ways to identify, store, and analyze large volumes of data. The research community has developed strong methods to address challenges of using RWD and as a result has increased the acceptance of RWD in research, practice, and policy. Historic concerns about RWD relate to data quality, privacy, and transparency; however, new tools, methods, and approaches mitigate these challenges and expand the utility of RWD to new applications. Specific guidelines for RWD use have been developed and published by numerous groups, including regulatory authorities. These and other efforts have shown that the more RWD are used and understood and the more the tools for handling it are refined, the more useful it will be.

Real-World Evidence: A Review of Real-World Data Sources Used in Orthopaedic Research.

SUMMARY: Real-world data (RWD) play an increasingly important role in orthopaedics as demonstrated by the rapidly growing number of publications using registry, administrative, and other databases. Each type of RWD source has its strengths and weaknesses, as does each specific database. Linkages between real-world data sets provide even greater utility and value for research than single data sources. The unique qualities of an RWD data source and all data linkages should be considered before use. Close attention to data quality and use of appropriate analysis methods can help alleviate concerns about validity of orthopaedic studies using RWD. This article describes the main types of RWD used in orthopaedics and provides brief descriptions and a sample listing of publications from selected, key data sources.

Randomized Clinical Trial or Real-World Evidence: How Historical Events, Public Demand, and the Resulting Laws and Regulations Shaped the Body of Medical Evidence.

SUMMARY: The signing of the 21st Centuries Cures Act in 2016 was a confirmational step in a long journey toward an understood use and need for real-world evidence (RWE), even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had the legislative authority to accept RWE since 1962 to demonstrate efficacy. The 21st Century Cures Act, as well as the subsequent FDA guidance published in 2017 and other supporting guidance, documents that since are opening the doors for the clinical and research community. They specifically allow for labeling changes and indication expansion based on RWE. The legislative discussion of efficacy requirements started in the late 1950s, when evidence of effectiveness was not required in the United States before the marketing of a drug or medical device, and calls for the real-world comparative effectiveness research were being made by Senator Estes Kefauver. When the thalidomide tragedy stuck, Congress and the Kennedy Administration rushed to pass a new law to require that drugs be "effective in use." The regulations subsequently drafted by the FDA to enforce the law often required placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In the 1980s, some started to label the RCT as the gold standard for medical evidence. The use of real-world data for new indication approval was not specifically prohibited by the 1962 law, but the new 2016 law sent a clear mandate to FDA, requiring the agency to review new forms of evidence such as RWE.

Dose response characterization of the association of serum digoxin concentration with mortality outcomes in the Digitalis Investigation Group trial.

AIMS: Many patients with heart failure and reduced EF remain at high risk for hospitalization despite evidence-based therapy. Digoxin may decrease hospitalization; however, uncertainty persists concerning its proper administration and effect on mortality. This study investigated whether using dose response concepts to re-evaluate the relationship between serum digoxin concentration and key mortality outcomes in patients with reduced EF in the Digitalis Investigation Group trial would help clarify efficacy and safety. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling and propensity score adjustment assessed the relationship between serum digoxin concentration (≥0.5 ng/mL) as a continuous variable and mortality outcomes. In patients treated with digoxin, a significant linear association was found between serum concentration and all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.38, P < 0.001 per 0.5 ng/mL increase in serum concentration]. Based on this relationship, a bidirectional association was found between digoxin therapy and all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. The lowest serum concentrations (0.5-0.7 ng/mL) were associated with the lowest risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.89, P < 0.001) while high serum concentrations (1.6-2.0 ng/mL) were associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.58, P = 0.001). Consistent with this finding, lower serum concentrations (0.5-0.7 ng/mL) were associated with reduced death from worsening heart failure and a neutral effect on cardiovascular death not due to worsening heart failure. CONCLUSION: These findings favour targeting serum concentrations from 0.5 to 0.7 ng/mL when dosing digoxin in patients with heart failure and reduced EF.

A perspective on re-evaluating digoxin's role in the current management of patients with chronic systolic heart failure: targeting serum concentration to reduce hospitalization and improve safety profile.

Digoxin improves exercise tolerance and reduces hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, but its use has declined progressively for the past two decades. The Digitalis Investigation Group trial showed that digoxin reduced hospitalizations but had a neutral effect on total mortality. There was evidence that mortality caused by worsening heart failure was less, but there was also a signal suggesting an increase in other cardiac (presumed arrhythmic) death. Use of digoxin has declined substantially and recent guideline recommendations have significantly de-emphasized the importance of this drug in the management of heart failure. Two developments suggest that re-evaluation of the contemporary role of digoxin in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is warranted. First, heart failure remains progressive, characterized by chronic debility, exercise intolerance, and frequent and costly hospitalizations, despite evidence-based drug and device therapies that prolong survival. Health economics have made reducing hospitalizations in patients with heart failure a major priority. Second, a strong association has emerged between serum concentration and the safety and efficacy of digoxin, which indicates a change in our approach to dosing this agent is needed. Experimental and clinical results suggest that optimizing therapeutic benefit and avoiding harm means dosing to achieve low serum digoxin concentrations (0.5-0.9 ng/mL). Digoxin is an inexpensive agent and the totality of evidence indicates that it reduces hospitalizations and improves symptoms safely when dosed to achieve low serum concentrations. These findings suggest digoxin should have a more prominent therapeutic role in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum for dupuytren contracture: patterns of use and effectiveness in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To collect data on the real-world effectiveness of collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) during its first year of use following U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval and compare those results with clinical trial efficacy data. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was conducted at 10 U.S. community and academic practice sites with major experience using CCH. Charts of patients treated with CCH between February and December 2010 were abstracted, and anonymized data were analyzed. Clinical use, including number of injections per cord and effectiveness outcomes (joint contracture and range of motion) were compared with results from 2 registration trials. RESULTS: Data were collected from 501 patients (74% male; 48% employed; mean [SD] age, 65 [10] y); 463 patients had sufficient data for analysis. We found that 1.08 CCH injections were used per treated joint, compared with a mean of 1.7 injections in registration trials. Ninety-three percent of joints received only 1 injection. The mean (SD) number of visits per injection was 2.92 (1.0). Mean (SD) contracture was reduced by 75% from 49° (21) at baseline to 12° (17), similar to the 71% to 79% reduction in clinical trials. Mean (SD) range of motion was improved by 37° from 44° (20) at baseline to 81° (14), similar to the increase of 35° and 37° in the 2 clinical trials; and 67% of first injections resulted in full correction to 0° to 5°, compared with the clinical trial rate of 39%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower injection rate, correction of joint contracture and range of motion was similar to findings from clinical trials. Effectiveness reports using this kind of surveillance design could provide patients, physicians, and payers with the information needed to make better treatment and reimbursement decisions. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Comparison of resource use by COPD patients on inhaled therapies with long-acting bronchodilators: a database study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to compare health care costs and utilization among COPD patients who had long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) OR long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA); LABA AND LAMA; or LABA, LAMA, AND inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescription claims. METHODS: This was a 12 month pre-post, retrospective analysis using COPD patients in a national administrative insurance database. Propensity score and exact matching were used to match patients 1:1:1 between the LABA or LAMA (formoterol, salmeterol, or tiotropium), LABA and LAMA (tiotropium/formoterol or tiotropium/salmeterol), and LABA, LAMA and ICS (bronchodilators plus steroid) groups. Post-period comparisons were evaluated with analysis of covariance. Costs were evaluated from a commercial payer perspective. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were matched using 29 pre-period variables (e.g., demographics, medication exposure). Post-match assessments indicated balance among the cohorts. COPD-related costs differed among groups (LABA or LAMA $2,051 SE = 91; LABA and LAMA $2,823 SE = 62; LABA, LAMA and ICS $3,546 SE = 89; all p < .0001) with the differences driven by study medication costs. However, non-study COPD medication costs were higher for the LABA or LAMA therapy group ($911 SE = 91) compared to the LABA and LAMA therapy group ($668 SE = 58; p = 0.0238) and non-study respiratory medications were approximately $100 greater for the LABA or LAMA therapy group relative to both LABA and LAMA (p = .0018) and LABA, LAMA, and ICS (p = .0071) therapy groups. While there was no observed difference in outpatient costs, there was a slightly higher number of outpatient visits per patient in the LABA and LAMA (25.5 SE = 0.9, p = 0.0070) relative to the LABA or LAMA therapy group (22.3 SE = 0.8) and higher utilization (89.7% of patients) with COPD visits in the LABA and LAMA therapy group relative to both the LABA or LAMA (73.8%; p < .0001) and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapy groups (85.3; p = 0.0305). CONCLUSIONS: Significant cost differences driven mainly by pharmaceuticals were observed among LABA or LAMA, LABA and LAMA and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapies. A COPD-related cost offset was observed from single bronchodilator to two bronchodilators. Addition of an ICS with two bronchodilators resulted in higher treatment costs without reduction in other COPD-related costs compared with two bronchodilators.

Rates of venous thromboembolism among patients with major surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported VTE rates during surgical stays in hospitals or by diagnoses over extended periods without being linked to specific surgical events. The purpose of this project was to assess the potential rate of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer after a surgical procedure within the immediate posthospital admission period of 30 days, with special emphasis in increased sensitivity of detection. METHODS: Patients with cancer who had a major surgery were identified in a large commercial (non-Medicare) database containing data from more than 22 million patients in the United States. Those with a new diagnosis of VTE within 30 days postadmission for surgery were identified. Additional drug-based criteria were used to vary the VTE definition in a sensitivity analysis. VTE rates are reported for each of the surgical procedure group and overall. RESULTS: The overall 30-day VTE rate was 3.5% with a diagnosis based definition, with rates ranging by procedure from 1.8 to 13.2%. Esophageal resection patients have a VTE rate of 13.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.8-18.9%), whereas prostatectomy patients have a VTE rate of 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5-2.1%). Of the 3.5% of patients with a VTE diagnosis on or before postoperative day 30, 73% of those have the VTE diagnosis by day 14. Another 1.15% is added to the overall VTE rate as the definition sensitivity is increased with outpatient pharmacy claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Using administrative data from large populations provides valuable insight into the potential VTE rates that occur within the 30-day post period after various cancer-related surgeries. The information can be used by surgeons as one component of the benefit-risk decision regarding postoperative VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients.

A two-stage decision analysis to assess the cost of 5-aminosalicylic acid failure and the economics of balsalazide versus mesalamine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a costly disease, especially if not properly treated. Epidemiologic studies have shown that many patients progress in one year from initial treatment with prednisone to expensive colonectomy surgery if the UC is not managed with drug therapy. A two-stage decision analysis was conducted to (1) estimate the cost of a 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) treatment failure using the treatment guidelines recommended by the American College of Gastroenterology and (2) incorporate the cost of a 5-ASA treatment failure to determine which oral 5-ASA agent results in cost minimization and cost effectiveness. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective, incorporating results from clinical trials directly comparing oral balsalazide capsules and a specific formulation of oral mesalamine. Health care costs related to UC for an oral 5-ASA failure is greater than dollar 11,500 on average in the first six months after therapy. Patients treated with balsalazide capsules had 16% lower total direct health care costs, 32% better outcomes (days without symptoms or steroids), and 37% greater cost effectiveness compared with patients treated with a specific formulation of oral mesalamine. Coordinated efforts should be taken to avoid the cost and morbidity associated with 5-ASA treatment failures.

Triptan therapy impacts health and productivity.

New sumatriptan users in a California health plan were surveyed on the impact of migraine using a newly developed migraine impact measure, the Headache Impact Test-6. Productivity and satisfaction with migraine therapy also were assessed. After sumatriptan was initiated, participants reported significantly fewer workdays missed, fewer days worked with headache, and greater productivity while headache symptoms were present. In addition, almost 50% less members used narcotics/opioids, while the frequency, duration, and severity of migraines decreased. Initiation of sumatriptan therapy is associated with improvements in absenteeism and presenteeism, clinical outcomes (Headache Impact Test-6), and satisfaction. The benefits of triptan therapy extend to the employer, who sees a decrease in lost productivity, fewer emergency room visits, and less narcotics use in employees with migraine. Managed care organizations that provide this pharmacotherapy may foster greater satisfaction among members and employer customers.

Quality-of-life-adjusted survival comparison of sustained-release cytosine arabinoside versus intrathecal methotrexate for treatment of solid tumor neoplastic meningitis.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the quality of life of patients with solid tumor neoplastic meningitis treated in a controlled trial that compared conventional intrathecal methotrexate with a depot cytosine arabinoside liposomal injection (DepoCyt). The authors evaluated the trade-off between toxicity and improved clinical outcome. METHODS: Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis was used to evaluate data collected prospectively from a randomized clinical trial that compared DepoCyt with methotrexate. Sixty-one patients with confirmed solid tumor neoplastic meningitis were randomized to receive either methotrexate or DepoCyt. RESULTS: Within the 12-month follow-up, the average patient in the DepoCyt arm (compared with the methotrexate arm) achieved 71 more days of neurologic progression-free survival and 52 more days of overall survival, but experienced slightly more days with toxicity. The DepoCyt regimen provided greater quality-adjusted survival regardless of the quality-of-life valuations placed on time with toxicity and time following disease progression (range, 44-79 days). This gain was significant (P < 0.05) for all patients except for those who placed a high relative value on time following disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefits of DepoCyt offset a trend toward additional toxicity among patients with sold tumor neoplastic meningitis. The magnitude of the benefit depends on how the patient values time spent in toxicity and disease progression. The results of this analysis can be used at the bedside to make evidence-based individual treatment decisions.