Dataset Information

Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

ABSTRACT: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is generally considered the most reliable source of estimates of relative treatment effects. However, in the last few years, there has been interest in using non-randomized studies to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials. Several meta-analytical models have been proposed to this end. Such models mainly focussed on estimating the average relative effects of interventions. In real-life clinical practice, when deciding on how to treat a patient, it might be of great interest to have personalized predictions of absolute outcomes under several available treatment options. This paper describes a general framework for developing models that combine individual patient data from randomized controlled trials and non-randomized study when aiming to predict outcomes for a set of competing medical interventions applied in real-world clinical settings. We also discuss methods for measuring the models' performance to identify the optimal model to use in each setting. We focus on the case of continuous outcomes and illustrate our methods using a data set from rheumatoid arthritis, comprising patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials and two registries from Switzerland and Britain.

SUBMITTER: Seo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9251754 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Seo Michael M Debray Thomas Pa TP Ruffieux Yann Y Gsteiger Sandro S Bujkiewicz Sylwia S Finckh Axel A Egger Matthias M Efthimiou Orestis O

Statistical methods in medical research 20220426 7

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is generally considered the most reliable source of estimates of relative treatment effects. However, in the last few years, there has been interest in using non-randomized studies to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials. Several meta-analytical models have been proposed to this end. Such models mainly focussed on estimating the average relative effects of interventions. In real-life clinical practice, when deciding on how to treat a ...[more]

PMID: 35469504

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveReal-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population.MethodsEXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics.ResultsAnalyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16-49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively.ConclusionsThis pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness and utility of various preventive interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various COVID-19 preventive interventions, including non-medical interventions (NMIs) and vaccination programs, using real-world data across different demographic and socioeconomic contexts worldwide.MethodsWe searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from December 2019 to March 2024. We identified 75 studies which compared 34 COVID-19 preventive interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the incremental net benefits (INB) of these interventions from both societal and health care system perspectives. We adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) and standardised willingness to pay (WTP) to enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness across different economic levels. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses to examine the robustness of the results.ResultsMovement restrictions and expanding testing emerged as the most cost-effective strategies from a societal perspective, with WTP-standardised INB values of USD 21 050 and USD 11 144. In contrast, combinations of NMIs with vaccination were less cost-effective, particularly in high-income regions. From a health care system perspective, vaccination plus distancing and test, trace, and isolate strategy were highly cost-effective, while masking requirements were less economically viable. The effectiveness of interventions varied significantly across different economic contexts, underlining the necessity for region-specific strategies.ConclusionsIn this study, we highlight significant variations in the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 preventive interventions. Tailoring strategies to specific regional economic and infrastructural conditions is crucial. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of these strategies are essential for effective management of ongoing and future public health threats.RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42023385169.

Project description:Rapid and robust strategies to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of novel and existing pharmacotherapeutic interventions (repurposed treatments) in future pandemics are required. Observational "real-world studies" (RWS) can report more quickly than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and would have value were they to yield reliable results. Both RCTs and RWS were deployed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Comparing results between them offers a unique opportunity to determine the potential value and contribution of each. A learning review of these parallel evidence channels in COVID-19, based on quantitative modeling, can help improve speed and reliability in the evaluation of repurposed therapeutics in a future pandemic. Analysis of all-cause mortality data from 249 observational RWS and RCTs across eight treatment regimens for COVID-19 showed that RWS yield more heterogeneous results, and generally overestimate the effect size subsequently seen in RCTs. This is explained in part by a few study factors: the presence of RWS that are imbalanced for age, gender, and disease severity, and those reporting mortality at 2 weeks or less. Smaller studies of either type contributed negligibly. Analysis of evidence generated sequentially during the pandemic indicated that larger RCTs drive our ability to make conclusive decisions regarding clinical benefit of each treatment, with limited inference drawn from RWS. These results suggest that when evaluating therapies in future pandemics, (1) large RCTs, especially platform studies, be deployed early; (2) any RWS should be large and should have adequate matching of known confounders and long follow-up; (3) reporting standards and data standards for primary endpoints, explanatory factors, and key subgroups should be improved; in addition, (4) appropriate incentives should be in place to enable access to patient-level data; and (5) an overall aggregate view of all available results should be available at any given time.

Dataset Information

Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Publications

Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets