Real-World Evidence in Regulatory Decision Making: Time for Evidence Integration

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1002/cpt.3444
Rebecca A. Miksad
{"title":"Real-World Evidence in Regulatory Decision Making: Time for Evidence Integration","authors":"Rebecca A. Miksad","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past decade, consideration of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory settings has come into sharper focus. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have chosen different paths to explore integrating RWE into decision-making processes.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> In this issue of Clinical Pharmacology &amp; Therapeutics (CPT), Prilla <i>et al</i>.<span><sup>1</sup></span> evaluate the EMA's experience during the second stage (2021–2023) of an RWE pilot program that began in 2019.</p><p>The EMA employs a three-pronged approach to RWE generation: internal research, the DARWIN EU® network, and external pathways. Prilla <i>et al</i>.<span><sup>1</sup></span> demonstrate that research topics, typically requested during or in anticipation of regulatory procedures, are topical, practical, and support the scope of regulators and downstream decision-makers. This multifaceted RWE generation strategy using a flexible and comprehensive framework could serve as a model for other regulatory bodies.</p><p>The 61 RWE requests during the study time period offer several proof points for integrating RWE into evidence assessment. The RWE requests that were delivered offered timely insights from rapidly completed studies, enhanced understanding of clinical issues from diverse data sources, and informed plans for addressing unanswered questions. Nearly a quarter of the topics evaluated related to children, a group typically underrepresented in clinical trials even for conditions with a high pediatric burden.<span><sup>1, 3-5</sup></span> Almost half concerned rare diseases or orphan drugs, areas often lacking robust clinical trial data and detailed literature.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> The diversity of therapeutic areas covered, from anti-infectives to antineoplastic agents, underscores the potential broad applicability of RWE across disease areas. These RWE request pattern reflects global unmet regulatory needs that various policies have sought to address.</p><p>The prominence of requests related to age subgroups, pediatric investigational plans (PIP), and post-authorization study design suggests RWE's utility in compiling evidence for other historically underrepresented populations. In the United States, the FDA's Diversity Action Plan (DAP) requirement, updated in July 2024, presents opportunities for RWE to complement enrollment efforts at several junctures: creation of DAPs for registration enabling trials, evidentiary gaps at the time of regulatory procedures, and post-marketing requirements.<span><sup>8, 9</sup></span> A similar assessment in the United States of regulatory questions addressed with RWE, regardless of approval outcome, would be revealing.</p><p>The EMA's experience also outlines current limits of RWE in regulatory settings. Over a third of requests that completed feasibility assessment were unable to proceed, primarily due to lack of fit-for-purpose data.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The EMA's ongoing expansion of RWE capacity, including access to datasets, and diversification of RWE generation pathways will broaden and deepen the research questions addressed. Continued transparency about topic feasibility, time lines, and scientific rigor will help refine use cases.</p><p>The optimal balance between RWE “supply” and regulator “demand” remains unclear. The EMA's approach seeks to balance efficiency and comprehensive evidence generation. From a process perspective, the value of the additional information from RWE depends on its impact on the outcome of a decision point. In regulatory settings in which clinical trial data remain the gold standard for effectiveness, RWE will likely have the biggest impact on decision confidence and, consequently, requirements for additional research, if any. Therefore, the benefit of spending time and resources RWE generation prior to or in regulatory settings is best considered in context of downstream effects.</p><p>Integrating RWE into regulatory decision making faces common observational study challenges: (i) fit-for-purpose data, which requires assessment of data quality characteristics such as reliability (completeness and accuracy) and relevance, and (ii) robust methodologies to mitigate bias and confounding.<span><sup>10, 11</sup></span> Existing and forthcoming guidelines from regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and other organizations across the world aim to ensure meaningful, relevant, and valid RWE.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>Key steps to realize RWE's potential in regulatory decision making at a global scale include the following: (i) harmonize data standards and RWE methodologies across regulatory, HTA, and payer contexts and geographies to enhance the comparability and transportability of RWE findings; (ii) foster close collaboration between stakeholders (regulatory agencies, HTAs and payers, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers, advocates, and patients) through continuous dialogue and knowledge sharing to find points of alignment; and (iii) continued investment in robust data infrastructure and advanced analytics capabilities, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, to facilitate efficiency and address most critical knowledge gaps (<b>Figure</b> 1).</p><p>CPT further explores this evidence-integration paradigm shift in the upcoming scheduled for publication in April 2025. Special Issue “Bench to Budget: Streamlining the Full Spectrum of Evidence Integration for Drug-Development and Patient Access.” This issue will examine current opportunities and challenges at the intersection of drug development, population health, and economic evaluation—a nexus at which RWE plays a pivotal role. Current and potential use cases range from drug discovery and development to pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics and preclinical studies, and from clinical evaluation of effectiveness and safety to regulatory review and to value demonstration to physicians, patients, and payers who cover the cost of therapeutics. The work by Prilla <i>et al</i>. serves as both a proof of concept and a call to action to move beyond traditional evidence boundaries. The integration of all types of evidence, including RWE, generative AI, and the many ‘omics, is critical for efficient, personalized, and patient-centered equitable healthcare.</p><p>No funding was received for this work.</p><p>RAM reports prior employment by Flatiron Health and Roche stock and current employment by Color Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"116 5","pages":"1153-1155"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpt.3444","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3444","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the past decade, consideration of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory settings has come into sharper focus. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have chosen different paths to explore integrating RWE into decision-making processes.1, 2 In this issue of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT), Prilla et al.1 evaluate the EMA's experience during the second stage (2021–2023) of an RWE pilot program that began in 2019.

The EMA employs a three-pronged approach to RWE generation: internal research, the DARWIN EU® network, and external pathways. Prilla et al.1 demonstrate that research topics, typically requested during or in anticipation of regulatory procedures, are topical, practical, and support the scope of regulators and downstream decision-makers. This multifaceted RWE generation strategy using a flexible and comprehensive framework could serve as a model for other regulatory bodies.

The 61 RWE requests during the study time period offer several proof points for integrating RWE into evidence assessment. The RWE requests that were delivered offered timely insights from rapidly completed studies, enhanced understanding of clinical issues from diverse data sources, and informed plans for addressing unanswered questions. Nearly a quarter of the topics evaluated related to children, a group typically underrepresented in clinical trials even for conditions with a high pediatric burden.1, 3-5 Almost half concerned rare diseases or orphan drugs, areas often lacking robust clinical trial data and detailed literature.6, 7 The diversity of therapeutic areas covered, from anti-infectives to antineoplastic agents, underscores the potential broad applicability of RWE across disease areas. These RWE request pattern reflects global unmet regulatory needs that various policies have sought to address.

The prominence of requests related to age subgroups, pediatric investigational plans (PIP), and post-authorization study design suggests RWE's utility in compiling evidence for other historically underrepresented populations. In the United States, the FDA's Diversity Action Plan (DAP) requirement, updated in July 2024, presents opportunities for RWE to complement enrollment efforts at several junctures: creation of DAPs for registration enabling trials, evidentiary gaps at the time of regulatory procedures, and post-marketing requirements.8, 9 A similar assessment in the United States of regulatory questions addressed with RWE, regardless of approval outcome, would be revealing.

The EMA's experience also outlines current limits of RWE in regulatory settings. Over a third of requests that completed feasibility assessment were unable to proceed, primarily due to lack of fit-for-purpose data.1 The EMA's ongoing expansion of RWE capacity, including access to datasets, and diversification of RWE generation pathways will broaden and deepen the research questions addressed. Continued transparency about topic feasibility, time lines, and scientific rigor will help refine use cases.

The optimal balance between RWE “supply” and regulator “demand” remains unclear. The EMA's approach seeks to balance efficiency and comprehensive evidence generation. From a process perspective, the value of the additional information from RWE depends on its impact on the outcome of a decision point. In regulatory settings in which clinical trial data remain the gold standard for effectiveness, RWE will likely have the biggest impact on decision confidence and, consequently, requirements for additional research, if any. Therefore, the benefit of spending time and resources RWE generation prior to or in regulatory settings is best considered in context of downstream effects.

Integrating RWE into regulatory decision making faces common observational study challenges: (i) fit-for-purpose data, which requires assessment of data quality characteristics such as reliability (completeness and accuracy) and relevance, and (ii) robust methodologies to mitigate bias and confounding.10, 11 Existing and forthcoming guidelines from regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and other organizations across the world aim to ensure meaningful, relevant, and valid RWE.10

Key steps to realize RWE's potential in regulatory decision making at a global scale include the following: (i) harmonize data standards and RWE methodologies across regulatory, HTA, and payer contexts and geographies to enhance the comparability and transportability of RWE findings; (ii) foster close collaboration between stakeholders (regulatory agencies, HTAs and payers, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers, advocates, and patients) through continuous dialogue and knowledge sharing to find points of alignment; and (iii) continued investment in robust data infrastructure and advanced analytics capabilities, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, to facilitate efficiency and address most critical knowledge gaps (Figure 1).

CPT further explores this evidence-integration paradigm shift in the upcoming scheduled for publication in April 2025. Special Issue “Bench to Budget: Streamlining the Full Spectrum of Evidence Integration for Drug-Development and Patient Access.” This issue will examine current opportunities and challenges at the intersection of drug development, population health, and economic evaluation—a nexus at which RWE plays a pivotal role. Current and potential use cases range from drug discovery and development to pharmacokinetics–pharmacodynamics and preclinical studies, and from clinical evaluation of effectiveness and safety to regulatory review and to value demonstration to physicians, patients, and payers who cover the cost of therapeutics. The work by Prilla et al. serves as both a proof of concept and a call to action to move beyond traditional evidence boundaries. The integration of all types of evidence, including RWE, generative AI, and the many ‘omics, is critical for efficient, personalized, and patient-centered equitable healthcare.

No funding was received for this work.

RAM reports prior employment by Flatiron Health and Roche stock and current employment by Color Health.

Abstract Image

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
监管决策中的现实证据:证据整合的时机已到
在过去十年中,监管机构对真实世界证据(RWE)的考虑越来越受到关注。欧洲药品管理局(EMA)和美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)选择了不同的路径来探索将真实世界证据纳入决策过程。1, 2 在本期《临床药理学与amp; 治疗学》(CPT)杂志中,Prilla 等人1 评估了欧洲药品管理局在 2019 年开始的真实世界证据试点计划第二阶段(2021-2023 年)的经验。Prilla 等人1 证明,研究课题通常是在监管程序期间或预期监管程序期间提出的要求,它们具有主题性、实用性,并支持监管机构和下游决策者的工作范围。在研究期间提出的 61 项 RWE 请求为将 RWE 纳入证据评估提供了几个证明点。已提交的 RWE 申请及时提供了从快速完成的研究中获得的见解,加强了对来自不同数据源的临床问题的理解,并为解决未决问题提供了参考计划。近四分之一的评估主题与儿童有关,而这一群体在临床试验中的代表性通常较低,即使是儿科负担较重的疾病也是如此1, 3-5 近一半的主题涉及罕见病或孤儿药,这些领域通常缺乏可靠的临床试验数据和详尽的文献资料6, 7 从抗感染药物到抗肿瘤药物,所涉及的治疗领域多种多样,这突出表明了 RWE 在各疾病领域的潜在广泛适用性。这些 RWE 申请模式反映了全球未满足的监管需求,而这些需求正是各种政策所要解决的。与年龄亚组、儿科研究计划 (PIP) 和授权后研究设计相关的申请的突出表现表明,RWE 在为其他历史上代表性不足的人群收集证据方面具有实用性。在美国,FDA 于 2024 年 7 月更新的 "多样性行动计划"(DAP)要求为 RWE 提供了机会,使其能够在以下几个关键时刻补充注册工作:为注册授权试验创建 DAP、监管程序时的证据缺口以及上市后要求。在完成可行性评估的申请中,超过三分之一的申请无法继续进行,主要原因是缺乏符合目的的数据。1 EMA 不断扩大 RWE 能力,包括数据集的获取,以及 RWE 生成途径的多样化,这将拓宽和深化所解决的研究问题。有关课题可行性、时间安排和科学严谨性的持续透明度将有助于完善使用案例。RWE "供应 "与监管机构 "需求 "之间的最佳平衡仍不明确。欧洲药品管理局(EMA)的方法力求在效率和全面证据生成之间取得平衡。从流程的角度来看,RWE 额外信息的价值取决于其对决策点结果的影响。在临床试验数据仍是有效性黄金标准的监管环境中,RWE 可能会对决策的可信度产生最大影响,因此也会对额外研究(如有)的要求产生最大影响。因此,在监管环境之前或监管环境中花费时间和资源生成 RWE 的益处最好结合下游效应来考虑。将 RWE 纳入监管决策面临着常见的观察性研究挑战:(i) 适合目的的数据,这需要评估数据质量特征,如可靠性(完整性和准确性)和相关性;(ii) 减少偏倚和混杂的稳健方法。 10 在全球范围内实现 RWE 在监管决策中的潜力的关键步骤包括以下几点:(i) 统一数据标准和 RWE 方法,跨越监管、HTA 和支付方的背景和地域,以提高 RWE 研究结果的可比性和可移植性;(ii) 通过持续对话和知识共享,促进利益相关方(监管机构、HTA 和支付方、制药公司、医疗服务提供者、倡导者和患者)之间的密切合作,以找到一致点;(iii) 继续投资于强大的数据基础设施和先进的分析能力,包括人工智能和机器学习,以提高效率并解决最关键的知识差距(图 1)。CPT 将在计划于 2025 年 4 月出版的特刊《从基准到预算》中进一步探讨这种证据整合模式的转变。特刊 "从实验室到预算:简化药物开发和患者使用证据整合的全过程"。本期特刊将探讨当前药物开发、人口健康和经济评估交叉领域的机遇和挑战--RWE 在其中发挥着关键作用。当前和潜在的用例包括从药物发现和开发到药代动力学-药效学和临床前研究,从有效性和安全性的临床评估到监管审查,以及向医生、患者和支付治疗费用的付款人展示价值。Prilla 等人的研究既是概念的证明,也是对超越传统证据界限的行动号召。整合所有类型的证据,包括RWE、生成式人工智能和许多'omics',对于高效、个性化和以患者为中心的公平医疗保健至关重要。
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
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
期刊最新文献
Cerebral Ischemia Protection After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: CSF Nimodipine Levels After Intravenous Versus Oral Nimodipine Administration. Contemporary Use of β-Blockers in Heart Failure Patients With and Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Database Analysis. Correction to Effectively Leveraging RWD for External Controls: A Systematic Literature Review of Regulatory and HTA Decisions. Infection Risk Associated with High-Efficacy Disease-Modifying Agents in Multiple Sclerosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study. In This Issue
×
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