scholarly journals How can real‐world evidence aid decision making during the life cycle of non‐prescription medicines?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emese Csoke ◽  
Matthew J Francis ◽  
Larry Ma ◽  
Denise Teotico Pohlhaus ◽  
Sabine Landes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Prescription Medicines ◽  
Aid Decision

Real‐world evidence to support regulatory decision making: New or expanded medical product indications

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Kai‐Li Liaw ◽  
Solomon Iyasu ◽  
Cathy Critchlow ◽  
Nancy Dreyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Real World ◽  
Medical Product ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Real World Evidence

scholarly journals Postlaunch evidence-generation studies for medical devices in Spain: the RedETS approach to integrate real-world evidence into decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar ◽  
Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea ◽  
Pilar Díaz ◽  
Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia ◽  
Jesús González-Enríquez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Real World ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Health Policy Decision ◽  
Regional Health Authorities

Abstract The Monitoring Studies (MS) program, the approach developed by RedETS to generate postlaunch real-world evidence (RWE), is intended to complement and enhance the conventional health technology assessment process to support health policy decision making in Spain, besides informing other interested stakeholders, including clinicians and patients. The MS program is focused on specific uncertainties about the real effect, safety, costs, and routine use of new and insufficiently assessed relevant medical devices carefully selected to ensure the value of the additional research needed, by means of structured, controlled, participative, and transparent procedures. However, despite a clear political commitment and economic support from national and regional health authorities, several difficulties were identified along the development and implementation of the first wave of MS, delaying its execution and final reporting. Resolution of these difficulties at the regional and national levels and a greater collaborative impulse in the European Union, given the availability of an appropriate methodological framework already provided by EUnetHTA, might provide a faster and more efficient comparative RWE of improved quality and reliability at the national and international levels.

PP205 The Use Of Real-World Evidence To Support National Institute For Health And Care Excellence Medical Technology Submissions

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Scott Gibson ◽  
Sita Saunders ◽  
Maximilian Blüher ◽  
Amanda Hansson Hedblom ◽  
Rafael Torrejon Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Real World ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Positive Recommendation

IntroductionAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are recognized as providing the highest level of clinical evidence, few medical device RCTs are available due to underfunding or inherent challenges associated with trial design. This study examines the extent to which real-world evidence (RWE) supports the recommendations made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP).MethodsAll MTEP guidance documents published online prior to October 2020 were reviewed. The “case for adoption” recommendation, type of clinical data, and clinical critiques for each MTEP submission were extracted and categorized. RWE was defined as studies with neither blinding nor prospective selection or control of patient characteristics.ResultsOf the MTEP submissions reviewed, 34 of 45 (76%) received a positive recommendation. Independent of outcome, all submissions included RWE, but only 19 (42%) utilized RCT evidence (15 were recommended and four were not). Meta-analyses of RWE were used whenever possible. The most common clinical critiques in unsuccessful submissions were the following: (i) not generalizable to the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS); (ii) low quality; (iii) likelihood of bias; (iv) trial design faults; (v) uncertain benefit; and (vi) evidence unrelated to scope.ConclusionsThis study suggests that while the use of RCTs has not always led to a positive recommendation, RWE can be valuable in decision-making. Evidence that is generalizable to the NHS, is related to the scope, and shows clear indication of benefit is more likely to positively influence MTEP decision-making.

scholarly journals Awareness, Knowledge, and Utility of RCT Data vs RWE: Results From a Survey of US Cardiologists: Real-world Evidence in Clinical Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117954682095341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd C Villines ◽  
Mark J Cziraky ◽  
Alpesh N Amin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Body ◽  
Representative Sampling ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Wide Range

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides a potential rich source of additional information to the body of data available from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but there is a need to understand the strengths and limitations of RWE before it can be applied to clinical practice. To gain insight into current thinking in clinical decision making and utility of different data sources, a representative sampling of US cardiologists selected from the current, active Fellows of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) were surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of findings from RCTs and RWE studies and their application in clinical practice. The survey was conducted online via the ACC web portal between 12 July and 11 August 2017. Of the 548 active ACC Fellows invited as panel members, 173 completed the survey (32% response), most of whom were board certified in general cardiology (n = 119, 69%) or interventional cardiology (n = 40, 23%). The survey results indicated a wide range of familiarity with and utilization of RWE amongst cardiologists. Most cardiologists were familiar with RWE and considered RWE in clinical practice at least some of the time. However, a significant minority of survey respondents had rarely or never applied RWE learnings in their clinical practice, and many did not feel confident in the results of RWE other than registry data. These survey findings suggest that additional education on how to assess and interpret RWE could help physicians to integrate data and learnings from RCTs and RWE to best guide clinical decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document