实体恶性肿瘤授权靶向疗法欧洲公共评估报告中临床疗效评估报告的真实世界证据:全面回顾(2018-2022年)

J.W.G. Derksen , D. Martins-Branco , A. Valachis , A. Pellat , S.C.M.W. van Nassau , A. Aggarwal , G. Pentheroudakis , M. Koopman , L. Castelo-Branco , S. Delaloge
{"title":"实体恶性肿瘤授权靶向疗法欧洲公共评估报告中临床疗效评估报告的真实世界证据:全面回顾(2018-2022年)","authors":"J.W.G. Derksen ,&nbsp;D. Martins-Branco ,&nbsp;A. Valachis ,&nbsp;A. Pellat ,&nbsp;S.C.M.W. van Nassau ,&nbsp;A. Aggarwal ,&nbsp;G. Pentheroudakis ,&nbsp;M. Koopman ,&nbsp;L. Castelo-Branco ,&nbsp;S. Delaloge","doi":"10.1016/j.esmorw.2024.100039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The role of real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation remains unclear. We aimed to assess and describe the reported use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation of authorised targeted therapies for treatment of solid malignancies in Europe.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>We studied all authorised indications of targeted therapies for the treatment of solid malignancies granted by the European Medicines Agency between 2018 and 2022. Data were retrieved in March 2023 from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). We evaluated the frequency of RWE use for clinical efficacy evaluation and its role based on the reported information in the EPAR, and assessed characteristics and risk of bias of published studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of 75 authorised indications identified, most related to the treatment of patients with lung (21.3%) or breast (20.0%) cacer, and to advanced settings (89.3%). The use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation was reported in the EPAR of 16 (21.3%) indications, tending to increase overtime (15.0%-35.7% in 2018-2022). RWE was more frequently considered in lung (37.5%) and breast (33.3%) cancer indications, for antibody–drug conjugates (60.0%), and conditional approvals (46.7%). We classified RWE’s role as ‘supportive’ confirmatory evidence in 12 of 16 (75.0%) indications. RWE studies were mostly analytical (57.1%), non-international (92.9%), retrospective cohort studies (57.1%), and originated from the United States (78.6%). High or serious risk of bias was identified in different domains of most studies assessed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>RWE was reported to be used for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation in 21% of targeted therapy indications for solid malignancies, with an increasing trend over time.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100491,"journal":{"name":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000171/pdfft?md5=e2d055fe563356f81b53f550f914089d&pid=1-s2.0-S2949820124000171-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world evidence reported for clinical efficacy evaluation in European Public Assessment Reports of authorised targeted therapies for solid malignancies: a comprehensive review (2018-2022)\",\"authors\":\"J.W.G. Derksen ,&nbsp;D. Martins-Branco ,&nbsp;A. Valachis ,&nbsp;A. Pellat ,&nbsp;S.C.M.W. van Nassau ,&nbsp;A. Aggarwal ,&nbsp;G. Pentheroudakis ,&nbsp;M. Koopman ,&nbsp;L. Castelo-Branco ,&nbsp;S. Delaloge\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esmorw.2024.100039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The role of real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation remains unclear. We aimed to assess and describe the reported use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation of authorised targeted therapies for treatment of solid malignancies in Europe.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>We studied all authorised indications of targeted therapies for the treatment of solid malignancies granted by the European Medicines Agency between 2018 and 2022. Data were retrieved in March 2023 from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). We evaluated the frequency of RWE use for clinical efficacy evaluation and its role based on the reported information in the EPAR, and assessed characteristics and risk of bias of published studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of 75 authorised indications identified, most related to the treatment of patients with lung (21.3%) or breast (20.0%) cacer, and to advanced settings (89.3%). The use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation was reported in the EPAR of 16 (21.3%) indications, tending to increase overtime (15.0%-35.7% in 2018-2022). RWE was more frequently considered in lung (37.5%) and breast (33.3%) cancer indications, for antibody–drug conjugates (60.0%), and conditional approvals (46.7%). We classified RWE’s role as ‘supportive’ confirmatory evidence in 12 of 16 (75.0%) indications. RWE studies were mostly analytical (57.1%), non-international (92.9%), retrospective cohort studies (57.1%), and originated from the United States (78.6%). High or serious risk of bias was identified in different domains of most studies assessed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>RWE was reported to be used for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation in 21% of targeted therapy indications for solid malignancies, with an increasing trend over time.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100039\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000171/pdfft?md5=e2d055fe563356f81b53f550f914089d&pid=1-s2.0-S2949820124000171-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景真实世界证据(RWE)在临床疗效监管评估中的作用尚不明确。设计我们研究了欧洲药品管理局在2018年至2022年期间批准的所有治疗实体恶性肿瘤的靶向疗法的授权适应症。我们于 2023 年 3 月从欧洲公共评估报告(EPAR)中检索到了相关数据。我们根据 EPAR 中报告的信息评估了临床疗效评估中使用 RWE 的频率及其作用,并评估了已发表研究的特征和偏倚风险。结果在已确定的 75 个授权适应症中,大多数与肺癌(21.3%)或乳腺癌(20.0%)患者的治疗有关,并与晚期设置(89.3%)有关。在 16 个(21.3%)适应症的 EPAR 中报告了使用 RWE 进行临床疗效评估的情况,并呈逐年上升趋势(2018-2022 年为 15.0%-35.7%)。在肺癌(37.5%)和乳腺癌(33.3%)适应症、抗体药物共轭物(60.0%)和有条件批准(46.7%)中,RWE被考虑的频率更高。在 16 个适应症中的 12 个(75.0%),我们将 RWE 的作用归类为 "支持性 "确证证据。RWE研究多为分析性研究(57.1%)、非国际性研究(92.9%)、回顾性队列研究(57.1%),且多来自美国(78.6%)。结论据报道,在21%的实体恶性肿瘤靶向治疗适应症中使用了RWE进行临床疗效监管评估,而且随着时间的推移呈上升趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Real-world evidence reported for clinical efficacy evaluation in European Public Assessment Reports of authorised targeted therapies for solid malignancies: a comprehensive review (2018-2022)

Background

The role of real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation remains unclear. We aimed to assess and describe the reported use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation of authorised targeted therapies for treatment of solid malignancies in Europe.

Design

We studied all authorised indications of targeted therapies for the treatment of solid malignancies granted by the European Medicines Agency between 2018 and 2022. Data were retrieved in March 2023 from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). We evaluated the frequency of RWE use for clinical efficacy evaluation and its role based on the reported information in the EPAR, and assessed characteristics and risk of bias of published studies.

Results

Out of 75 authorised indications identified, most related to the treatment of patients with lung (21.3%) or breast (20.0%) cacer, and to advanced settings (89.3%). The use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation was reported in the EPAR of 16 (21.3%) indications, tending to increase overtime (15.0%-35.7% in 2018-2022). RWE was more frequently considered in lung (37.5%) and breast (33.3%) cancer indications, for antibody–drug conjugates (60.0%), and conditional approvals (46.7%). We classified RWE’s role as ‘supportive’ confirmatory evidence in 12 of 16 (75.0%) indications. RWE studies were mostly analytical (57.1%), non-international (92.9%), retrospective cohort studies (57.1%), and originated from the United States (78.6%). High or serious risk of bias was identified in different domains of most studies assessed.

Conclusions

RWE was reported to be used for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation in 21% of targeted therapy indications for solid malignancies, with an increasing trend over time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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