Review of Challenges in Performing Real-World Evidence Studies for Nonprescription Products.

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Pragmatic and Observational Research Pub Date : 2025-01-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/POR.S504709
Christian Maihöfner, Theresa Mallick-Searle, Jan Vollert, Pranab Kalita, Vidhu Sood Sethi
{"title":"Review of Challenges in Performing Real-World Evidence Studies for Nonprescription Products.","authors":"Christian Maihöfner, Theresa Mallick-Searle, Jan Vollert, Pranab Kalita, Vidhu Sood Sethi","doi":"10.2147/POR.S504709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, regulatory authorities have signaled a willingness to consider real-world evidence (RWE) data to support applications for new claims and indications for pharmaceuticals. Historically, RWE studies have been the domain of prescription drugs, driven by the fact that clinical data on patients are routinely captured in medical records, claims databases, registries, etc. However, RWE reports of nonprescription drugs and supplements are relatively sparse due to methodological gaps in this area. The objective of this narrative review is to identify which RWE methodologies have been used to study nonprescription products. A total of 49 articles were included based on literature searches. Label comprehension studies, used to support prescription-to-nonprescription switches, are useful in determining how nonprescription products will be used; however, they provide no actual clinical data. The most common RWE studies of nonprescription products were cross-sectional surveys, which investigated a broad range of indications and were conducted in an array of settings, including online, by phone, point-of-sale (pharmacy), outpatient clinics, and shopping malls. However, while this type of study is effective for identifying use patterns and attitudes in the general population, recall bias limits the ability to collect safety and effectiveness data. Studies of electronic medical records and claims databases are hampered by incomplete or absent capturing of data on nonprescription products. As a result, most RWE studies to date have provided limited useful information. Although case reports and expert opinion should not be discounted, in the absence of other information they provide few actual data. Novel approaches using smartphone apps and artificial intelligence may provide new opportunities to collect RWE for nonprescription products, but these areas of research are in their infancy. Overall, there is a need to develop standards for execution of RWE studies of nonprescription products in terms of endpoints, study design, and study quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":"16 ","pages":"7-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11771160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S504709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, regulatory authorities have signaled a willingness to consider real-world evidence (RWE) data to support applications for new claims and indications for pharmaceuticals. Historically, RWE studies have been the domain of prescription drugs, driven by the fact that clinical data on patients are routinely captured in medical records, claims databases, registries, etc. However, RWE reports of nonprescription drugs and supplements are relatively sparse due to methodological gaps in this area. The objective of this narrative review is to identify which RWE methodologies have been used to study nonprescription products. A total of 49 articles were included based on literature searches. Label comprehension studies, used to support prescription-to-nonprescription switches, are useful in determining how nonprescription products will be used; however, they provide no actual clinical data. The most common RWE studies of nonprescription products were cross-sectional surveys, which investigated a broad range of indications and were conducted in an array of settings, including online, by phone, point-of-sale (pharmacy), outpatient clinics, and shopping malls. However, while this type of study is effective for identifying use patterns and attitudes in the general population, recall bias limits the ability to collect safety and effectiveness data. Studies of electronic medical records and claims databases are hampered by incomplete or absent capturing of data on nonprescription products. As a result, most RWE studies to date have provided limited useful information. Although case reports and expert opinion should not be discounted, in the absence of other information they provide few actual data. Novel approaches using smartphone apps and artificial intelligence may provide new opportunities to collect RWE for nonprescription products, but these areas of research are in their infancy. Overall, there is a need to develop standards for execution of RWE studies of nonprescription products in terms of endpoints, study design, and study quality.

对非处方产品进行真实世界证据研究的挑战综述。
近年来,监管机构已经表示愿意考虑真实世界证据(RWE)数据来支持新的药品声明和适应症的申请。从历史上看,RWE研究一直是处方药的领域,这是因为患者的临床数据通常在医疗记录、索赔数据库、登记处等中被捕获。然而,RWE关于非处方药和补充剂的报告相对较少,这是由于该领域方法学上的差距。这篇叙述性综述的目的是确定哪些RWE方法已被用于研究非处方产品。通过文献检索,共纳入49篇文献。标签理解研究用于支持处方到非处方的转换,在确定如何使用非处方产品方面是有用的;然而,他们没有提供实际的临床数据。最常见的非处方产品RWE研究是横断面调查,调查了广泛的适应症,并在一系列环境中进行,包括在线,通过电话,销售点(药房),门诊诊所和购物中心。然而,虽然这种类型的研究对于确定一般人群的使用模式和态度是有效的,但回忆偏差限制了收集安全性和有效性数据的能力。电子医疗记录和索赔数据库的研究受到非处方产品数据捕获不完整或缺失的阻碍。因此,迄今为止大多数RWE研究提供的有用信息有限。虽然不应忽视病例报告和专家意见,但在缺乏其他信息的情况下,它们提供的实际数据很少。使用智能手机应用程序和人工智能的新方法可能为收集非处方产品的RWE提供新的机会,但这些研究领域还处于起步阶段。总的来说,有必要在终点、研究设计和研究质量方面为非处方产品的RWE研究制定执行标准。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Pragmatic and Observational Research
Pragmatic and Observational Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信