Feasibility of using real-world data to emulate substance use disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02307-1
Guneet S Janda, Molly Moore Jeffery, Reshma Ramachandran, Joseph S Ross, Joshua D Wallach
{"title":"Feasibility of using real-world data to emulate substance use disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Guneet S Janda, Molly Moore Jeffery, Reshma Ramachandran, Joseph S Ross, Joshua D Wallach","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02307-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Real-world evidence is receiving considerable attention as a way to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical products for substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the feasibility of using real-world data (RWD) to emulate clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs is uncertain. The aim of this study is to identify the number of clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs with reported results that could be feasibly emulated using observational data from contemporary insurance claims and/or electronic health record (EHR) data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, all phase 2-4 trials evaluating treatments for SUDs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results were identified. Each trial was evaluated to determine if the indications, interventions, at least 80% of eligibility criteria, comparators, and primary end points could be ascertained using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 272 SUD trials on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results. Of these, when examining feasibility using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data, 262 (96.3%) had indications that were ascertainable; 194 (71.3%) had interventions that were ascertainable; 21 (7.7%) had at least 80% of eligibility criteria that were ascertainable; 17 (6.3%) had active comparators that were ascertainable; and 61 (22.4%) had primary end points that were ascertainable. In total, there were no trials for which all 5 characteristics were ascertainable using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data. When considering placebo comparators as ascertainable, there were 6 (2.2%) trials that had all 5 key characteristics classified as ascertainable from contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No trials evaluating treatments for SUDs could be feasibly emulated using contemporarily available RWD, demonstrating a need for an increase in the resolution of data capture within a public health system to facilitate trial emulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"187"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11351457/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02307-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Real-world evidence is receiving considerable attention as a way to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical products for substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the feasibility of using real-world data (RWD) to emulate clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs is uncertain. The aim of this study is to identify the number of clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs with reported results that could be feasibly emulated using observational data from contemporary insurance claims and/or electronic health record (EHR) data.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, all phase 2-4 trials evaluating treatments for SUDs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results were identified. Each trial was evaluated to determine if the indications, interventions, at least 80% of eligibility criteria, comparators, and primary end points could be ascertained using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data.

Results: There were 272 SUD trials on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results. Of these, when examining feasibility using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data, 262 (96.3%) had indications that were ascertainable; 194 (71.3%) had interventions that were ascertainable; 21 (7.7%) had at least 80% of eligibility criteria that were ascertainable; 17 (6.3%) had active comparators that were ascertainable; and 61 (22.4%) had primary end points that were ascertainable. In total, there were no trials for which all 5 characteristics were ascertainable using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data. When considering placebo comparators as ascertainable, there were 6 (2.2%) trials that had all 5 key characteristics classified as ascertainable from contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data.

Conclusions: No trials evaluating treatments for SUDs could be feasibly emulated using contemporarily available RWD, demonstrating a need for an increase in the resolution of data capture within a public health system to facilitate trial emulation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用真实世界数据模拟药物使用障碍临床试验的可行性:一项横断面研究。
导言:真实世界证据作为评估药物使用障碍(SUD)医疗产品疗效和安全性的一种方法,受到了广泛关注。然而,使用真实世界数据(RWD)来模拟评估药物滥用障碍治疗方法的临床试验的可行性尚不确定。本研究旨在确定有多少项评估 SUD 治疗方法的临床试验的报告结果可以利用当代保险理赔和/或电子健康记录 (EHR) 数据中的观察数据进行仿真:在这项横断面研究中,确定了所有在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册并报告结果的 SUD 治疗方法 2-4 期临床试验。我们对每项试验进行了评估,以确定是否可以利用当时可用的行政报销单和/或结构化电子病历数据确定适应症、干预措施、至少 80% 的资格标准、参照物和主要终点:结果:ClinicalTrials.gov 上有 272 项 SUD 试验并报告了结果。其中,在使用当时可用的行政报销单和/或结构化电子病历数据进行可行性研究时,有 262 项(96.3%)试验的适应症可以确定;194 项(71.3%)试验的干预措施可以确定;21 项(7.7%)试验至少有 80% 的资格标准可以确定;17 项(6.3%)试验的积极参照物可以确定;61 项(22.4%)试验的主要终点可以确定。总之,没有一项试验的所有 5 个特征都能通过当时可用的行政报销单和/或结构化电子病历数据来确定。如果将安慰剂对比试验视为可确定试验,则有6项试验(2.2%)的所有5个关键特征均可通过当时可用的行政报销单和/或结构化电子病历数据确定:没有一项评估 SUDs 治疗方法的试验可以利用当时可用的 RWD 进行仿真,这表明需要提高公共卫生系统内数据采集的分辨率,以促进试验仿真。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Forced randomization: the what, why, and how. Three new methodologies for calculating the effective sample size when performing population adjustment. Correction: Inclusion of unexposed clusters improves the precision of fixed effects analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with binary and count outcomes. FAIR data management: a framework for fostering data literacy in biomedical sciences education. A Bayesian analysis integrating expert beliefs to better understand how new evidence ought to update what we believe: a use case of chiropractic care and acute lumbar disc herniation with early surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1