2020
DOI: 10.1007/s43441-020-00131-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modernizing Regulatory Evidence with Trials and Real-World Studies

Abstract: We are taught that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating whether a treatment can achieve its intended benefit because they are designed to isolate treatment effects while essentially balancing all other factors, known and unknown. While an elegant tool, the results from RCTs are not always generalizable to less idealized settings and more diverse patients. Real-world evidence (RWE), conducted alongside or as an extension of clinical trials, can play an important role in compl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, careful review and interpretation of the results will be critical, particularly if there are discrepancies between the target RCT and the observational study. The conclusion should not be that the observational study was flawed or confounded [40]. The learning achieved through investigating the reasons for differences may improve our understanding of when trustworthy causal inferences can be made from observational data but may also provide insights on how better to design RCTs to improve their generalizability and usefulness in decision-making.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, careful review and interpretation of the results will be critical, particularly if there are discrepancies between the target RCT and the observational study. The conclusion should not be that the observational study was flawed or confounded [40]. The learning achieved through investigating the reasons for differences may improve our understanding of when trustworthy causal inferences can be made from observational data but may also provide insights on how better to design RCTs to improve their generalizability and usefulness in decision-making.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has therefore focused on compounds under patent as opposed to generic CBMPs where research outcomes fail to provide a similar return on investment for licensed producers and pharmaceutical companies. Historically, clinical trials on CBMPs were funded privately, which may be associated with potential reporting biases [ 19 ].…”
Section: Barriers To Controlled Clinical Trials For Medical Cannabismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There can be differences in the results of RWD and RCTs; however, considering the complexities in health care systems and high degree of variation in treatment response in the real world, RWD may differ from RCTs but still be valid. 14 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extension of initiatives such as Friends to multicountry settings will further support the development of best practices for the generation and evaluation of RWE to supplement RCTs in regulatory decision making and inform the development of future regulatory guidance. 14 RWE can support regulatory decision making about new or expanded medication indications in a number of ways, from the more established use of external controls for single-arm trials, which have also been used as the basis of US Food and Drug Administration–accelerated approvals, to the growing interest in the use of pragmatic trials and nonrandomized RWE from health care databases, particularly in situations where real-world outcomes and clinical practice patterns differ significantly from the tightly controlled RCT settings. 6 , 19 Studies similar to ours that establish research processes and evaluate the strengths, limitations, and validity of specific RWD for addressing defined clinical questions can support development of guidelines on fit-for-purpose RWD and defining standards for RWE studies intended to inform regulatory decisions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%