The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 382, Issue 7, 2020, Pages 674-678

  Collins, Rory ^a   Bowman, Louise ^a   Landray, Martin ^a   Peto, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; INSULIN;

ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; COLON CANCER; DEATH; DIABETIC KETOACIDOSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASM; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; REYE SYNDROME; RHABDOMYOLYSIS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SECONDARY PREVENTION; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED STATES; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85079335866     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1901642     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Galson S, Simon G. Real-world evidence to guide the approval and use of new treatments. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine, 2016 (https://nam.edu/wp -content/uploads/2016/10/Real -World -Evidence -to -Guide -the -Approval -and -Use -of -New -Treatments.pdf).
2. Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S. When and how can real world data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017; 102: 924-33.
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Examining the impact of real-world evidence on medical product development: Proceedings of a workshop series. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2019 (http://nationalacademies.org/HMD/Reports/2019/examining -impact -real -world -evidence -on -medical -product -development -proceedings.aspx).
4. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 2007; 334: 349-51.
5. Collins R, Reith C, Emberson J, et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. Lancet 2016; 388: 2532-61.
6. Corrigan-Curay J, Sacks L, Woodcock J. Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. JAMA 2018; 320: 867-8.
7. Eapen ZJ, Lauer MS, Temple RJ. The imperative of overcoming barriers to the conduct of large, simple trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 1397-8.
8. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich A-B, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001; 286: 821-30.
9. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1-173.
10. Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: A simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166: 646-55.
11. Giordano SH, Kuo YF, Duan Z, Hortobagyi GN, Freeman J, Goodwin JS. Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. Cancer 2008; 112: 2456-66.
12. Bosco JL, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, et al. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 64-74.
13. Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG, Bojesen SE. Statin use and reduced cancer-related mortality. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1792-802.
14. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2012; 344: E1553.
15. Roberts I, Prieto-Merino D. Applying results from clinical trials: Tranexamic acid in trauma patients. J Intensive Care 2014; 2: 56.
16. Reith C, Landray M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Randomized clinical trials - removing unnecessary obstacles. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1061-5.
17. Stewart DJ, Whitney SN, Kurzrock R. Equipoise lost: Ethics, costs, and the regulation of cancer clinical research. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2925-35.
18. Assessment of the functioning of the "Clinical Trials Directive" 2001/20/EC. Public consultation paper. Brussels: European Commission, 2009. (Publication no. ENTR/F/2/SF D(2009) 32674) (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/clinicaltrials/docs/2009_10_09_public -consultation -paper.pdf).
19. Analytical Research Cognizance. Global contract research organization (CRO) market 2019 by company, regions, type and application, forecast to 2024. Report ID 296079. March 11, 2019 (http://www.arcognizance.com/report/global -contract -research -organization -cro -market -2019 -by -company -regions -type -and -application -forecast -to -2024).
20. Waters DD, Hsue PY. PCSK9 inhibition to reduce cardiovascular risk: Tempering expectations. Circ Res 2017; 120: 1537-9.
21. Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 2295-306.
22. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20, 536 high-risk individuals: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 7-22.
23. The HPS3/TIMI55-REVEAL Collaborative Group. Effects of anacetrapib in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1217-27.
24. James S, Rao SV, Granger CB. Registry-based randomized clinical trials - a new clinical trial paradigm. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015; 12: 312-6.
25. Kim ES, Bruinooge SS, Roberts S, et al. Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research joint research statement. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3737-44.
26. Meeker-O'Connell A, Glessner C, Behm M, et al. Enhancing clinical evidence by proactively building quality into clinical trials. Clin Trials 2016; 13: 439-44.
27. Baigent C, Harrell FE, Buyse M, Emberson JR, Altman DG. Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials 2008; 5: 49-55.
28. Bakobaki JM, Rauchenberger M, Joffe N, McCormack S, Stenning S, Meredith S. The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: Findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 257-64.
29. Food and Drug Administration. Oversight of clinical investigations - a risk-based approach to monitoring. Guidance for industry. August 2013 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM269919.pdf).
30. Lindblad AS, Manukyan Z, Purohit-Sheth T, et al. Central site monitoring: Results from a test of accuracy in identifying trials and sites failing Food and Drug Administration inspection. Clin Trials 2014; 11: 205-17.
31. Pogue J, Walter SD, Yusuf S. Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs. Clin Trials 2009; 6: 239-51.
32. Ndounga Diakou LA, Trinquart L, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3: MR000043.
33. Hlatky MA, Ray RM, Burwen DR, et al. Use of Medicare data to identify coronary heart disease outcomes in the Women's Health Initiative. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014; 7: 157-62.
34. Ford I, Murray H, McCowan C, Packard CJ. Long-term safety and efficacy of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statin therapy: 20-year follow-up of West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation 2016; 133: 1073-80.
35. Herrington WG, Goldsack JC, Landray MJ. Increasing the use of mobile technology-derived endpoints in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2018; 15: 313-5.
36. Landray MJ, Bax JJ, Alliot L, et al. Improving public health by improving clinical trial guidelines and their application. Eur Heart J 2017; 38: 1632-7.