Dataset Information

EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A review of European Union (EU)-funded initiatives linked to 'Real World Evidence' (RWE) was performed to determine whether their outputs could be used for the generation of real-world data able to support the European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s regulatory decision-making on medicines.

Method

The initiatives were identified from publicly available websites. Their topics were categorised into five areas: 'Data source', 'Methodology', 'Governance model', 'Analytical model' and 'Infrastructure'. To assess their immediate relevance for medicines evaluation, their therapeutic areas were compared with the products recommended for EU approval in 2016 and those included in the EMA pharmaceutical business pipeline.

Results

Of 171 originally identified EU-funded initiatives, 65 were selected based on their primary and secondary objectives (35 'Data source' initiatives, 15 'Methodology', 10 'Governance model', 17 'Analytical model' and 25 'Infrastructure'). These 65 initiatives received over 734?million Euros of public funding. At the time of evaluation, the published outputs of the 40 completed initiatives did not always match their original objectives. Overall, public information was limited, data access was not explicit and their sustainability was unclear. The topics matched 8 of 14 therapeutic areas of the products recommended for approval in 2016 and 8 of 15 therapeutic areas in the 2017-2019 pharmaceutical business pipeline. Haematology, gastroenterology or cardiovascular systems were poorly represented.

Conclusions

This landscape of EU-funded initiatives linked to RWE which started before 31 December 2016 highlighted that the immediate utilisation of their outputs to support regulatory decision-making is limited, often due to insufficient available information and to discrepancies between outputs and objectives. Furthermore, the restricted sustainability of the initiatives impacts on their downstream utility. Multiple projects focussing on the same therapeutic areas increase the likelihood of duplication of both efforts and resources. These issues contribute to gaps in generating RWE for medicines and diminish returns on the public funds invested.

SUBMITTER: Plueschke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6009620 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making.

Plueschke Kelly K McGettigan Patricia P Pacurariu Alexandra A Kurz Xavier X Cave Alison A

BMJ open 20180614 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>A review of European Union (EU)-funded initiatives linked to 'Real World Evidence' (RWE) was performed to determine whether their outputs could be used for the generation of real-world data able to support the European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s regulatory decision-making on medicines.<h4>Method</h4>The initiatives were identified from publicly available websites. Their topics were categorised into five areas: 'Data source', 'Methodology', 'Governance model', 'Analytical model ...[more]

PMID: 29903798

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAims were to 1) to characterize patient decision-making with treatment for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and 2) to explore relationships among decision-making, treatment satisfaction, and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).MethodsArthritisPower participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA were invited to complete an online survey about their treatment and their most recent physician visit. Analysis compared treatment decision by satisfaction and bDMARD status.ResultsAmong the 274 participants, 87.2% were female, and the mean age was 50 years. Of participants, 79.5% had researched treatment before their most recent physician visit, and 56.9% discussed treatment change at their most recent physician visit. Of treatment-change discussions, 69.2% of them were related to escalation, compared with deescalation (27.6%) and/or switching (39.1%). Among those participants who discussed a change, 73.7% agreed to it because they felt that their disease was not being controlled (54.9%) or felt that it could be better controlled on new treatment (20.3%). Top symptoms prompting change were back/buttock pain (63.3%), other joint pain (55.1%), and fatigue (54.1%). Among bDMARD-treated participants (n = 128), important factors for treatment decisions were prevention of long-term axSpA consequences (92.9%) and doctor's advice (87.5%). Among 43.4% of participants reporting treatment dissatisfaction, 37% did not discuss treatment change. Current bDMARD use was more common in satisfied (61.9%) than dissatisfied participants (26.9%).ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study of a predominantly female axSpA population, patients frequently researched treatment options and discussed escalation with their providers. Under two-thirds of participants who were dissatisfied with treatment discussed changes at their most recent visit. Current bDMARD use was associated with higher satisfaction, and bDMARD users considered prevention of long-term consequences and doctor's advice to be very important for decision-making.

Project description:Background: Multiple Sclerosis Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS PATHS) is the first example of a learning health system in multiple sclerosis (MS). This paper describes the initial implementation of MS PATHS and initial patient characteristics. Methods: MS PATHS is an ongoing initiative conducted in 10 healthcare institutions in three countries, each contributing standardized information acquired during routine care. Institutional participation required the following: active MS patient census of ≥500, at least one Siemens 3T magnetic resonance imaging scanner, and willingness to standardize patient assessments, share standardized data for research, and offer universal enrolment to capture a representative sample. The eligible participants have diagnosis of MS, including clinically isolated syndrome, and consent for sharing pseudonymized data for research. MS PATHS incorporates a self-administered patient assessment tool, the Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test, to collect a structured history, patient-reported outcomes, and quantitative testing of cognition, vision, dexterity, and walking speed. Brain magnetic resonance imaging is acquired using standardized acquisition sequences on Siemens 3T scanners. Quantitative measures of brain volume and lesion load are obtained. Using a separate consent, the patients contribute DNA, RNA, and serum for future research. The clinicians retain complete autonomy in using MS PATHS data in patient care. A shared governance model ensures transparent data and sample access for research. Results: As of August 5, 2019, MS PATHS enrolment included participants (n = 16,568) with broad ranges of disease subtypes, duration, and severity. Overall, 14,643 (88.4%) participants contributed data at one or more time points. The average patient contributed 15.6 person-months of follow-up (95% CI: 15.5-15.8); overall, 166,158 person-months of follow-up have been accumulated. Those with relapsing-remitting MS demonstrated more demographic heterogeneity than the participants in six randomized phase 3 MS treatment trials. Across sites, a significant variation was observed in the follow-up frequency and the patterns of disease-modifying therapy use. Conclusions: Through digital health technology, it is feasible to collect standardized, quantitative, and interpretable data from each patient in busy MS practices, facilitating the merger of research and patient care. This approach holds promise for data-driven clinical decisions and accelerated systematic learning.

Project description:Objective: To explore the effect of real-world fear on risky decision-making under certainty and uncertainty. Methods: This quasi-experimental study enrolled non-psychology undergraduate volunteers aged between 17 and 20 years old from the Preventive Medical Institute medical school in Xi'an. Participants were randomly divided into two groups, and each group received a two-stage crossover design intervention (of a calm and fearful situation) and completed the tasks of risky decision-making under uncertainty (the balloon analog risk task: BART) and certainty (the Cambridge gambling task: CGT), respectively. The primary outcomes included the behavioral impulsivity measured by the BART value, and the speed of decision-making, the quality of decisions, the adventure index, behavioral impulsivity, and risk adjustment measured by CGT. The secondary outcome was the concentration of cortisol in the saliva. Results: A total of 60 questionnaires and data were obtained from 60 participants (28 males and 32 females, aged 19.55 ± 0.75). Compared with the calm situation, participants were more likely to have a lower BART value (p = 0.013), slower speed of decision-making (p < 0.05), and higher adventure index (p = 0.018) in the fearful situation. The quality of decisions (p = 0.189), behavioral impulsivity index (p = 0.182), and risk adjustment (p = 0.063) between subjects in the fearful and calm situations were comparable. Furthermore, the mean value of the adventure index of CGT in male subjects was significantly higher than that in female subjects (p < 0.05), and the cortisol concentration in saliva during the fearful situation was significantly higher compared to the calm situation (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Fear might reduce behavioral impulsivity under uncertainty, and increase the adventure index under certainty in risky decision-making. Risky behavior might be influenced by gender: under certainty in risky decision-making, men were more adventurous. Additionally, fear increased the secretion of cortisol in saliva.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM), the process of engaging patients in their healthcare decisions, is an integral component of personalized medicine. The use of SDM in real-world allergy and asthma care in the United States (US) is unknown. Cross-sectional surveys of allergists and patients in a US population were conducted to assess the use and perceptions of SDM and SDM tools in real-world allergy and asthma care.MethodsAllergists (N = 101) who were members of the American College of Allergy Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) and who were also Dynata (a marketing research firm) research partners or in the Allergy & Asthma Network customer database completed an online survey from February-March 2022. Adult patients (N = 110) with asthma, allergy, and/or eczema in the United States who were participants of online research panels hosted by Dynata completed on online survey from February 1-7, 2022.ResultsBased on their own definition, 98% of the allergists reported familiarity with SDM, and 79% reported using it frequently. Allergists reported using SDM with an average of 44% of their patients. The most commonly used tool was the Immunotherapy SDM toolkit (40%); 43% had not used any SDM tool. Among allergists not using SDM or using it infrequently (n = 19), 42% considered it too time-consuming and 37% believed their patients have low health literacy. Of the surveyed patients, 25% reported their provider used SDM "frequently" or "occasionally" when being treated for allergies, asthma, or eczema, and 22% reported using SDM tools with their provider at some point. The most commonly used tool was the Asthma and Allergy Symptom Test (60%). Among patients whose allergists used SDM infrequently or never (n = 56), 70% reported they would be likely to ask their allergist to use SDM more often.ConclusionSurvey responses revealed a disconnect between allergists and patients regarding SDM use. Barriers to SDM are consistent with those across the healthcare industry. Patients clearly expressed their desire for SDM.

Dataset Information

EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making.

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets