Contemporary Practice and Considerations for Real-World Data Source Identification and Feasibility Assessment.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5862
Dony Patel, Sonia Guleria, Lina Titievsky, Susanna Flaherty, Nicholas Everage, Marta Korjagina, Sheuli Porkess, Tzuyung Douglas Kou, Deborah Layton
{"title":"Contemporary Practice and Considerations for Real-World Data Source Identification and Feasibility Assessment.","authors":"Dony Patel, Sonia Guleria, Lina Titievsky, Susanna Flaherty, Nicholas Everage, Marta Korjagina, Sheuli Porkess, Tzuyung Douglas Kou, Deborah Layton","doi":"10.1002/pds.5862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>There has been rapid growth in the variety and number of real-world data (RWD) sources, as well as the number of regulatory documents that provide guidance for assessing the suitability of RWD sources for pharmacoepidemiology studies. This study aims to assess differences in RWD guidance and variability in current practice for identifying and assessing RWD for studies with regulatory purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Key criteria for feasibility assessment were mapped against relevant regulatory guidance documents across US, EU, and Asia-Pacific regions. An online survey was designed and deployed to International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology members to understand current practice. Findings were summarized and used to inform key considerations and recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven RWD guidance documents were identified and mapped against 14 RWD assessment criteria. Variability was seen across these documents in guidance for these criteria. Between December 2022 and January 2023, 37 survey respondents reported having used RWD for post-marketing commitments (34, 92%) and/or background epidemiology (28, 76%). RWD were mostly identified through literature (33, 89%) and data landscaping (26, 70%); guidance documents referenced included: Food and Drug Administration (20, 54%), European Network for Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (17, 46%), European Medical Agency (16, 43%), and Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (11, 30%). Challenges for conducting feasibility assessments included RWD accessibility, ability to complete validation, and RWD provider responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing guidelines are used extensively by researchers, but key criteria for RWD identification and feasibility assessment are not reflected consistently and challenges remain. Recommendations have been made reflecting study findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 9","pages":"e5862"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5862","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: There has been rapid growth in the variety and number of real-world data (RWD) sources, as well as the number of regulatory documents that provide guidance for assessing the suitability of RWD sources for pharmacoepidemiology studies. This study aims to assess differences in RWD guidance and variability in current practice for identifying and assessing RWD for studies with regulatory purpose.

Methods: Key criteria for feasibility assessment were mapped against relevant regulatory guidance documents across US, EU, and Asia-Pacific regions. An online survey was designed and deployed to International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology members to understand current practice. Findings were summarized and used to inform key considerations and recommendations.

Results: Eleven RWD guidance documents were identified and mapped against 14 RWD assessment criteria. Variability was seen across these documents in guidance for these criteria. Between December 2022 and January 2023, 37 survey respondents reported having used RWD for post-marketing commitments (34, 92%) and/or background epidemiology (28, 76%). RWD were mostly identified through literature (33, 89%) and data landscaping (26, 70%); guidance documents referenced included: Food and Drug Administration (20, 54%), European Network for Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (17, 46%), European Medical Agency (16, 43%), and Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (11, 30%). Challenges for conducting feasibility assessments included RWD accessibility, ability to complete validation, and RWD provider responsiveness.

Conclusions: Existing guidelines are used extensively by researchers, but key criteria for RWD identification and feasibility assessment are not reflected consistently and challenges remain. Recommendations have been made reflecting study findings.

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
现实世界数据源识别和可行性评估的当代实践与考虑因素。
目的:真实世界数据(RWD)来源的种类和数量以及为评估 RWD 来源是否适合药物流行病学研究提供指导的监管文件的数量都在快速增长。本研究旨在评估 RWD 指导方面的差异,以及目前为具有监管目的的研究识别和评估 RWD 的实践中存在的差异:方法:对照美国、欧盟和亚太地区的相关监管指导文件,绘制了可行性评估的关键标准图。设计并向国际药物流行病学协会会员发布了一项在线调查,以了解当前的做法。对调查结果进行了总结,并将其用于主要考虑因素和建议:结果:确定了 11 份 RWD 指导文件,并将其与 14 项 RWD 评估标准相对照。这些文件对这些标准的指导存在差异。在 2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 1 月期间,37 位调查对象报告称已将 RWD 用于上市后承诺(34 位,92%)和/或背景流行病学(28 位,76%)。大多数 RWD 是通过文献(33,89%)和数据美化(26,70%)确定的;参考的指导文件包括:参考的指导文件包括:美国食品和药物管理局(20,54%)、欧洲药物流行病学和药物警戒中心网络(17,46%)、欧洲医学机构(16,43%)和确定符合目的数据的结构化流程(11,30%)。进行可行性评估的挑战包括 RWD 的可访问性、完成验证的能力以及 RWD 提供者的响应能力:现有指南被研究人员广泛使用,但识别 RWD 和可行性评估的关键标准并未得到一致反映,挑战依然存在。根据研究结果提出了一些建议。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Lookback Duration on the Performance of a Claims-Based Frailty Proxy in Women With Stage I-III Breast Cancer. Impact of Pharmacovigilance Interventions Targeting Fluoroquinolones on Antibiotic Use in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Successful Linkage of Electronic Medical Records and National Health Data System in Type 2 Diabetes Research: Methodological Insights and Implications. Use of Potentially Nephrotoxic Drugs in Type 2 Diabetes Patients on SGLT2i: A Trajectories Analysis. Lessons Learned From Characterizing Long COVID Among US Medicare Beneficiaries.
×
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