Pharmaceutical Commerce - July/August 2013 - (Page 27)

Legal & Regulatory The value of real-world data in drug commercialization Using real-world databases for evidence development has strengths and weaknesses; with electronic health records (EHRs), new approaches are evolving Dr. Terry Cox, Quintiles Outcome Drug developers have long considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard in clinical research, but with the rise of electronic health records (EHRs), real-world studies that leverage existing medical and healthcare administrative data have become practical tools for getting actionable answers to clinical questions, including safety, outcomes, and many other health care endpoints. Availability of high quality real-world data is currently irregular but will be increasingly available globally over the next decade. Database analysis has its own unique set of challenges, but when used appropriately, it is an excellent tool that supplements RCT and prospective observational study data to provide a more comprehensive picture of efficacy and THE BUSINESS OF HEALTH OUTCOMES “Our division is growing very fast,” says Dr. Rick Gliklich, who combines roles as president of Quintiles Outcome (Cambridge, MA), professor at the Harvard Medical School, and director of the Post-Approval Summit (www.postapproval.org) held annually at Harvard. Gliklich was founder of Outcome Sciences, which was acquired by Quintiles in late 2011. Quintiles calls the business of the Outcomes unit “Real-World and Late-Phase Research,” highlighting the focus on patient registries and observational data that the unit specializes in. At the time of the Quintiles acquisition, late-phase (Phase IIIb/IV) activity was estimated to be worth $4 billion by 2015, and Gliklich says his company’s activity has only grown since the acquisition. Quintiles Outcome has multiple projects with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the unit of HHS that studies healthcare outcomes, and the company was selected by AHRQ to develop the Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR) database, a compilation of existing registries and observational studies, which had not previously been gathered together as other clinical trials are at www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Real-world data is becoming both more available, through the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, and more in-demand, as payers and governments look to such data to justify approvals and formulary placements. But the science around observational data is still being developed. “The gold standard in research is, of course, the randomized clinical trial, but the limitation of that is the lack of data on how medicine is used in real world settings, and the fact that the physician is essentially taken out of the equation by the nature of the trial structure,” says Gliklich. “Proof,” as it were, of the efficacy of a drug is not automatic in an observational study, either; the study needs to be able to capture the right data and to be appropriately analyzed. To this end, Quintiles Outcome is also involved in the GRACE (Guidelines for ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness) Initiative, which seeks to establish common standards for observational data (Pharmaceutical Commerce, Sept/Oct 2012, p. 1). effectiveness. Innovative hybrid study designs that leverage routine data sources are quickly capturing the interest of drug developers. Healthcare providers, and national and local payers are using real-world databases to provide quality and outcomes measurement to drive the most value for their patient populations. The current landscape for real-world database studies Access to existing high quality clinical data is increasingly in demand. However, there are a number of issues that confound the collection of this data. We have payers increasingly asking for more evidence of cost effectiveness that applies to the real world. Availability of this data is, however, contingent upon a product being reimbursed and prescribed. The quality of real-world databases from country to country is also mixed. Those that exist are often incomplete across different health care sectors; for example, many are focused on general practitioners or the hospital sector, but rarely does one database cover all the different settings that play a role in medical treatment. Still, even given these limitations, interest in real-world databases continues to grow, driven by a number of factors. First, there is a recognized need for more timely and costeffective research approaches, and it is now widely understood that real-world data is an essential component of evidencebased medicine. Real-world databases contain answers to questions important to payers and providers such as quality of care and value of provision. Further, technological advances and common data standards are enabling integration of disparate data sets. Scientific methods are growing in their sophistication to allow valid conclusions from real-world database studies. Adoption of EHR to support healthcare is accelerating. In fact, Global Data, a leading provider of business intelligence, projects worldwide EHR growth to surge a whopping 12 percent annually through 2016. Much of this growth will be driven by government financial incentives in the United States, Australia, China, and Canada, as well as by recent US legislation; namely, the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, and the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. New standards evolving out of these acts will allow for common data elements across EHR systems. Why not only use RCTs? Increased ease and availability of real-world data does not alone justify their use. The true reason for the increasing popularity of these databases is that RCTs are simply not well suited to answer all research questions. Although RCTs provide the strongest evidence for efficacy of a treatment, real-world database studies provide an ideal way to study effectiveness—that is, how a treatment works in actual practice. An RCT protocol is set up with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, making the study population vastly different from the population at large. These types of trials also do not give insights into why clinicians may use drugs off-label or in risky situations, and the RCT’s short treatment and follow-up duration limits our long-term understanding of the study subject. Real-world databases, on the other hand, are far less expensive and time-consuming, and their limited inclusion/ exclusion criteria mean patients are more representative of usual practice. They allow for access to broad information on how a drug works given a specific condition, so we can more easily assess comparative effectiveness. Also, the treatment population in a real-world database is more realistic and not limited to patients who may be predisposed to respond well to treatment. Real-world databases can add value in the pre-approval stage, as they allow for an exploration of the population that could benefit from a drug, facilitating better clinical trial design. When study results must be generalizable, insights on a large number of patients is quickly required, there is a need to identify trends over time, or recruitment of the target patient population is challenging, real-world databases can be an advantageous tool. However, as previously noted, there are challenges associated with these databases that must be considered. A database may not be available for the specific research objectives of interest, or the existing data may be incomplete. A pilot study is recommended to ensure the question can be addressed with the data available. Another challenge is free-form text entry, which often makes key information difficult to extract from a database. EHR databases may show medicines that have been prescribed, but were not necessarily filled, or a database may include the start date of a medication, but not the end date. Even if these challenges can be overcome, there are specific issues inherent to databases. In an observational database, assignment of treatment is not random. This means there may be varying severity of illness between patients who receive different treatments, which limits what we can infer in terms of treatment comparisons and outcomes. While randomization controls known and unknown differences between groups, databases do not. Statistical methods, such as propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis can help provide balance and compare like patients to like patients, but there is still work to be done in this area. Evolving hybrid study designs can strengthen EHR data Hybrid study designs that examine both EHR data and survey data are an innovative way to maximize the potential of real-world databases. Such approaches incorporate not only passive data collection via EHR, but also active data collection via surveys. Such designs have broad application, such as the assessment of practice patterns, patient experiences, and outcomes in physician offices. In the hybrid model, patients can be identified in the EHR database and invited to participate. As these patients go online to register and provide consent, baseline survey information can be collected from sites about characteristics of the patients and providers. Prospective information can be gathered via surveys from healthcare providers, and EHR data can be continually assessed to determine if new patients are qualifying. One key advantage of this approach over registries is that it reduces the research burden at the site and provides crossvalidation of what the patient reports and what the physician reports, therefore enhancing the strength of the EHR data. A “look back” period can be incorporated to shorten the overall study duration and facilitate time and cost efficiencies. With the expected surge in EHR growth globally, we continued on page 30 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Terry Cox is director of biostatistics at Quintiles Outcome. He is a boardcertified ophthalmologist with fellowship training in neuro-ophthalmology and a PhD in biostatistics. Since joining Quintiles Outcome, he has worked in a variety of disease areas, including cardiology, oncology, pediatrics, and diabetes. July | August Visit our website at www.PharmaceuticalCommerce.com 27 http://www.postapproval.org http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov http://www.PharmaceuticalCommerce.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Pharmaceutical Commerce - July/August 2013

Pharmaceutical Commerce - July/August 2013
Editorial
Contents
Op-Ed
Top News
Business/Finance
Brand Marketing & Communications
Supply Chain/Logistics
Information Technology
Manufacturing & Packaging
Legal & Regulatoryv
Meetings and Editorial Index

Pharmaceutical Commerce - July/August 2013

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201911
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201909
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201906
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201903
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201811
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201809
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201806
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20180304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20171112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20170910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20170708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20170506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20170304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20170102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20161112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20160910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20160708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20160506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20160304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20160102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20151112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20150910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20150708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20150506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20150304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20150102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20141112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/coldchaindirectory2014
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20140910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20140708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20140506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20140304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20140102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/dataservicedirectory
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20131112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130910_hubreport
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/coldchain2013
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20130102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20121112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120506_coldchain
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20120102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20111112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20110910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20110708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20110506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20110304
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20110102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20101112
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20100910
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20100708
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20100506
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201004
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/201003
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20100102
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pharmcomm/20091112
http://www.nxtbookMEDIA.com