No abstract

Abstract.Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems. Sažetak. Primjena najkvalitetnijih dokaza kliničkih istraživanja ključna je u odabiru ispravnog liječenja pacijenata. No, način na koji će se odabrati najbolji dokazi predstavlja često poteškoću. Ovim preglednim člankom prikazujemo opasnosti navedenog odabira, kao i načine kako ih umanjiti. Relevantni izvori razmatrani su pretragom literature u kombinaciji s osobnim datotekama. Izbor liječenja uglavnom se ne bi smio temeljiti isključivo na opservacijskim ili pojedinačnim randomiziranim kliničkim studijama. Sustavni pregledi s metaanalizom svih identificiranih randomiziranih kliničkih studija procijenjenih sustavom stupnjevanja procjene, razvoja i evalua cije preporuka (engl. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GRADE) predstavljaju najvišu razinu dokaza. Iako su sustavni pregledi pouzdaniji od drugih vrsta dokaza, sve razine hijerarhije dokaza ugrožene su sustavnim pogreškama (engl. bias); pogreškama dizajna studije (zloupotreba surogatnih ishoda, složenih ishoda itd.) i slučajnim pogreškama (igra slučaja). Kliničke istraživačke infrastrukture mogu pomoći u pružanju većih i adekvatnije provedenih ispitivanja. Sekvencijska analiza studija može pomoći pri odlučivanju kada postoji dovoljna razina dokaza u metaanalizama. Ako se prijetnje valjanosti kliničkih istraživanja pažljivo razmatraju i minimiziraju, rezultati istraživanja bit će vrjedniji i korisniji pacientima i zdravstvenim sustavima.Ključne riječi: klinička praksa temeljena na dokazima; medicina temeljena na dokazima; meta-analiza; randomizirana klinička studija; sekvencijska analiza studija; sustavni pregled

Although there may have been some small improvements over time in the methods for developing OMPs, in our opinion, the number of patients studied, the use of placebo as control, the type of outcome measure and the follow-up have often been inadequate. The present system should be changed to find better ways of fostering the development of effective and sustainable treatments for patients with orphan diseases. Public funds supporting independent clinical research on OMPs could bridge the gap between designation and approval. More stringent criteria to assess OMPs' efficacy and cost/effectiveness would improve the clinical value and the affordability of products allowed onto the market.

In most cases there was limited evidence supporting the positive benefit-risk balance at the time of approval. Delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of obligations allow medicinal products with unsettled benefit-risk profiles onto the market for several years. This should be taken into account when further early or step-wise licensing strategies are considered.