Currently Viewing:
ISPOR 2019
Panelists Discuss the Potential and Pitfalls of Disruption in Healthcare
May 20, 2019
Trends in Value That Dr Daniel Mullins Expects to See in Coming Years
May 21, 2019
Dr Jon Campbell Discusses the Need for More Creative Methods of Value Assessment
May 21, 2019
The Imperfect QALY: How It's Used Depends on Where You Enter Value Discussions
May 21, 2019
Paul Melmeyer: Value Assessments Need to Take Into Account Unique Characteristics of a Disease
May 22, 2019
Panelists Debate the Role of ICER: Useful Overseer of Prices, or Oppressor of Choice?
May 22, 2019
Bringing Financial Theory Into the Value Equation of Future Cutting-Edge Therapies
May 22, 2019
Dr Devin Incerti Outlines Best Practices for Approaching Value Assessment
May 22, 2019
Biosimilar Experts Give Highlights of US Uptake Issues
May 23, 2019
Currently Reading
Dr Nicholas Robert Explains the Benefits, Challenges of Using RWE for Measuring Clinical End Points
May 23, 2019
New Therapies Offer Possible Cures but Pose Affordability Challenges
May 23, 2019
Fremanezumab Cost Effective for Both Types of Migraine, Researchers Say
May 27, 2019
Dr Jon Campbell on Benefits of Using MCDA in Value Assessment
June 03, 2019
Dr Nicholas Robert Explains the Need to Standardize Use of RWE for Measuring Clinical End Points
June 23, 2019
Dr Devin Incerti: Use Value Assessments to Maximize the Well-Being of a Population
July 14, 2019
Dr Nicholas Robert Discusses How Real-World Data Can Complement Clinical Trial Data
July 16, 2019
Dr Eleanor Perfetto on Ways to Improve Transparency, Education Around Value Assessment
July 23, 2019
Dr Nicholas Robert on Lag Time Between Drug Approval, Availability of the Drug in EMRs
July 29, 2019
Dr Nicholas Robert: Lag Time Between a Drug Approval, Availability in EMRs Can Impact Patient Care
August 10, 2019
Dr Nicholas Robert Outlines How Patients Can Provide More Information on Newly Approved Drugs
August 22, 2019

Dr Nicholas Robert Explains the Benefits, Challenges of Using RWE for Measuring Clinical End Points

Nicholas Robert, MD, medical director of Data, Evidence & Insights, McKesson Life Sciences, discusses the benefits of real-world evidence (RWE) for measuring end points, as well as the challenges posed by variability in clinical practice. 


Nicholas Robert, MD, medical director of Data, Evidence & Insights, McKesson Life Sciences, discusses the benefits of real-world evidence (RWE) for measuring end points, as well as the challenges posed by variability in clinical practice. 

Transcript

How can real-world data be beneficial for measuring endpoints, particularly in rare tumor types?

With the advent of real-world data, which has really been the result of having electronic medical records, we have the ability to identify patients that have been treated in standard ways. So, if we have the opportunity to develop a new treatment, especially if the cancer’s a rare cancer, it’s hard to do the standard randomized clinical trial. So, what we can do is, that new agent can be tested in a group of new patients and we can compare those results with a similar group treated with standard therapy and in this way, we can advance new treatment faster. We recently did this in a very rare tumor called Merkel cell tumor, and the company developed a new agent and identified certain clinical outcomes and we were able to look at those same clinical outcomes with patients receiving standard therapy, and the evidence revealed this was an advance and the drug was subsequently approved.

What challenges are posed by variability in clinical practice that might influence response measurements?

That’s a really key question. Response is really a challenge. In a standard clinical trial, response is defined, there are metrics for that and are followed to see if the drug is really improving a response. When you go to real-world data, the same criteria is not used. Physicians, when they see patients that are being treated for cancer and the patients are doing better, they’re being described as such, and often they’ll include in their assessment results from scans, but not necessarily always. So, we actually recently look at this, we had a poster at ISPOR this year where we looked at the criteria and one of the things we did is we sat down as a group, these so-called playbook rules we developed, where we defined certain terms like response. But, physician assess response. So, I think when you use those terms, you have to be very careful and make sure that people understand you’re not using the same criteria that you would use in a clinical trial.

That being said, we have been able to use the metrics from a clinical trial retrospectively, and that has challenges and has limitations, but there is a way to obtain at least some CT [computerized tomography]-based measurements that you would see in a typical randomized trial. So, I think the message here is to be very transparent in the limitations when you look for evidence of response.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up