Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 1033-1039

  Berger, Marc L ^a   Sox, Harold ^b   Willke, Richard J ^c   Brixner, Diana L ^d   Eichler, Hans Georg ^e   Goettsch, Wim ^f   Madigan, David ^g   Makady, Amr ^f   Schneeweiss, Sebastian ^h   Tarricone, Rosanna ⁱ   Wang, Shirley V ^h   Watkins, John ^j   Daniel Mullins, C ^k  

^a Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute ^*  (United States)

^b PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^e EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^f UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^h BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^j Premera Blue Cross   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness; decision making; guidelines; pharmacoepidemiology; real world data; treatment effectiveness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85029457249     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4297     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR real-world data task force report. Value Health. 2006;10(5):326-335.
2. Makady A, de Boer A, Hillege H, Klungel O, Goettsch W. What is real-world data? A review of definitions based on literature and stakeholder interviews. Value Health. 2017;20(7):858-865.
3. Makady A, Ham RT, de Boer A, Hillege H, Klungel O, Goettsch W. GetReal Workpackage. Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): A comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health. 2017;20(4):520-532.
4. Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293-2297.
5. Brixner DI, Holtorf AP, Neumann PJ, Malone DC, Watkins JB. Standardizing quality assessment of observational studies for decision making in health care. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(3):275-283. Available at:http://www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/275-283.pdf
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff. Best practices for conducting and reporting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data. May 2013. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/
7. The PLOS Medicine Editors. Observational studies: Getting clear about transparency. PLoS Med. 2014;11(8):e1001711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001711guidances/ucm243537.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2015
8. Segal JB, Kallich JD, Oppenheim ER, et al. Using certification to promote uptake of real-world evidence by payers. J Manag Care Pharm. 2016;22(3):191-196.
9. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html (accessed July 6, 2017)
10. US Food and Drug Administration. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa (accessed July 6, 2017)
11. Motheral B, Brooks J, Clark MA, et al. A checklist for retroactive database studies—report of the ISPOR task force on retrospective databases. Value Health. 2003;6(2):90-97.
12. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report—part I. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1044-1052.
13. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, Garbe E, Siebert U, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of non-randomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force—part II. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1053-1061.
14. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, Dartmouth CR, Siebert U, Normand SL. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report—part III. Value Health. 2009;12:1062-1073.
15. Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, Towse A, Sedrakyan A, Normand SL. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2012;15:217-230.
16. Garrison LP, Towse A, Briggs A, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force, Value Health. 2013;16:703–709.
17. Berger M, Martin B, Husereau D, et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform healthcare decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):143-156.
18. Public Policy Committee. International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:2-10.
19. U.S. FDA: Guidance for industry and FDA staff: Best practices for conducting and reporting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data. May 2013. URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInform ation/Guidances/UCM243537.pdf
20. U. S. FDA: Guidance for industry: Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. March 2005.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126834.pdf
21. European Medicines Agency (EMA): Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) module VIII—post-authorisation safety studies (Rev 2). August 2016. URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129137.pdf
22. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html (accessed July 6, 2017)
23. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). The European Union electronic register of post-authorisation studies (EU PAS Register). http://www.encepp.eu/encepp_studies/indexRegister.shtml (Accessed July 13, 2017).
24. Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic clinical trials. NEJM. 2016;375:454-463.
25. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices: Same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402-404.
26. Wang SV, Brown J, Gagne JJ, Rassen JA, Klungel O, Douglas I, Smeeth L, Nguyen M, Sturkenboom M, Berger M, Eichler HG, Mullins D, Gini R, Schneeweiss S. Reporting to facilitate assessment of validity and improve reproducibility of healthcare database analyses 1.0. Working paper (May 3, 2017).
27. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, et al., RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885
28. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
29. US Food and Drug Administration. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa (accessed July 6, 2017)
30. Tarricone R, Torbica A, Drummond M, Schreyögg J. Assessment of medical devices: Challenges and solutions. Health Econ. 2017;S1:1-152. Accessed 4/29/2017
31. http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/publication-ja2-methodological-guideline- internal-validity-non-randomised-studies-nrs-interv.
32. Eichler HG, Baird LG, Barker R, et al. From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: Delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Mar;97(3):234-246. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.59
33. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm513027.pdf (Accessed 4/29/2017)
34. Wagenmakers EJ, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL, Kievit RA. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):632-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078
35. Kimmelman J, Mogil JS, Dirangl U. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biol. 2014 May;12(5):e1001863.
36. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34 (Accessed 4/29/2017)
37. HSRPoj. https://wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov/hsr_project/home_proj.cfm#. (Accessed March 21, 2017).
38. University hospital Medical Information Network–Clinical Trials Registry. http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm (Accessed July 5, 2017).
39. Blair, G., Cooper, J., Coppock, A., & Humphreys, M. Declaring and diagnosing research designs. 2006. https://declaredesign.org/paper.pdf (Accessed July 5, 2017).
40. Wang SV, Schneeweiss S. on behalf of the joint ISPE-ISPOR Special Task Force on Real World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making. Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(9):1018–1032.
41. Chen AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200-207.
42. Madigan D, Ryan P, Schuemie M, et al. Evaluating the impact of database heterogeneity on observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt010
43. Walker AM. Orthogonal predictions: Follow-up questions for suggestive data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(5):529-532.
44. Kirwan JR, de Wit M, Frank L, et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health. 2017;20(3):481-486.
45. Selby JV, Forsydth LP, Sox HC. Stakeholder-driven comparative effectiveness research: an update from PCORI. JAMA. 2015;314:2335-2336.
46. Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA, Hilliard T, Harwell D, Fayish L. Patient, caregiver and clinician views on engagement in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2017 Feb 8. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0062. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed; 28173732
47. Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA, Borsky A, Hilliard T, Harwell D, Fayish L. Health researcher views on comparative effectiveness research and research engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2017 Feb 8. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0063. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28173710.
48. Frank LB, Forsythe LP, Workman TA, Hilliard T, Lavelle M, Harwell D, Fayish L. Patient, caregiver and clinician use of comparative effectiveness research findings in care decisions: Results from a national study. J Comp Eff Res. 2017 Feb 8. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0061. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28173724.
49. Hill AB. Observation and experiment. N Engl J Med. 1953;248:995-1001.
50. ICH Harmonised TripartiteInternational conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use: Guideline Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9." (PDF). ICH. 1998–02-05.
51. Loannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8): e124
52. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359-1366.