var _paq = window._paq = window._paq || []; /* tracker methods like "setCustomDimension" should be called before "trackPageView" */ _paq.push(['trackPageView']); _paq.push(['enableLinkTracking']); (function() { var u="https://rwrregs.matomo.cloud/"; _paq.push(['setTrackerUrl', u+'matomo.php']); _paq.push(['setSiteId', '1']); var d=document, g=d.createElement('script'), s=d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; g.async=true; g.data-privacy-src='//cdn.matomo.cloud/rwrregs.matomo.cloud/matomo.js'; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g,s); })();

RWE 101 – Secondary Use of Existing Data

RWE 101 – Secondary Use of Existing Data

Secondary use of existing data refers to the practice of analyzing data that was collected for a different purpose than the current research question. This approach is becoming increasingly popular in real-world research because of the large amounts of data that are available through various sources, such as electronic health records, administrative databases, and social media.

In many cases, secondary data analysis can provide valuable insights and answer research questions that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to answer with primary data collection. For example, researchers can use existing data to study disease trends, evaluate the effectiveness of health interventions, and identify risk factors for various health outcomes.

Secondary data analysis can also be more cost-effective than primary data collection, as the data has already been collected and often comes at a lower cost than conducting a new study. Additionally, secondary data analysis can allow researchers to study topics that may not have been feasible to study with primary data collection due to ethical or practical limitations.

However, there are also potential limitations to secondary data analysis, such as the lack of control over the quality and accuracy of the data, and the potential for biases and confounding factors that were not accounted for in the original data collection. Therefore, researchers must carefully evaluate the suitability of existing data for their research question and take steps to address any limitations or potential biases in the data.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – Secondary Use of Existing Data2023-08-07T22:46:24+00:00

RWE 101 – Why is there so much excitement about the use of AI in the context of real world evidence?

RWE 101 – Why is there so much excitement about the use of AI in the context of real world evidence?

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the context of Real World Evidence (RWE) is generating excitement because it has the potential to transform the way healthcare is delivered and improve patient outcomes. RWE refers to data collected outside of the traditional clinical trial setting, such as electronic health records, claims data, and patient-generated data. This data provides valuable insights into how drugs and medical devices perform in real-world settings and how they impact patient health.

AI has the ability to rapidly analyze large volumes of complex data from multiple sources and identify patterns and insights that can help healthcare providers make better treatment decisions. For example, AI can help identify patient populations who may benefit most from a particular treatment, or it can help identify adverse events associated with a medication or medical device that may not have been detected in clinical trials.

The use of AI in RWE can also lead to cost savings by identifying more efficient and effective treatment options, reducing the need for trial-and-error treatments, and avoiding unnecessary procedures and tests.

Overall, the excitement surrounding the use of AI in RWE is due to its potential to improve patient outcomes, enhance healthcare delivery, and reduce costs.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – Why is there so much excitement about the use of AI in the context of real world evidence?2023-08-07T22:45:06+00:00

RWE 101 – What is the Difference Between an IRB and a REC?

RWE 101 – What is the Difference Between an IRB and a REC?

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) and a Research Ethics Committee (REC) are two different types of bodies that are responsible for ensuring that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. While the terms are often used interchangeably, there are some differences between an IRB and a REC.

In the United States, an IRB is a committee that is established by an institution, such as a university or hospital, to review and approve research protocols that involve human subjects. The IRB is responsible for ensuring that the study is designed and conducted in an ethical manner, that the risks to participants are minimized, and that the potential benefits of the study outweigh any potential harms. The IRB also monitors ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.

In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a Research Ethics Committee (REC) may have a similar role to an IRB. RECs are independent committees that review research proposals to ensure that they meet ethical and legal requirements, and that they are designed in a way that respects the rights and welfare of human participants. RECs may also provide ongoing monitoring and review of ongoing studies.

While there are some differences in the way that IRBs and RECs are structured and operate, their overall purpose is the same: to ensure that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. Both IRBs and RECs may require researchers to submit detailed study protocols and obtain informed consent from study participants, and both may monitor ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – What is the Difference Between an IRB and a REC?2023-08-07T22:43:57+00:00

RWE 101 – Do I Need IRB Approval for My Observational Study?

RWE 101 – Do I Need IRB Approval for My Observational Study?

In general, observational studies that involve human subjects require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to ensure that the study is conducted in an ethical manner and that the rights and welfare of study participants are protected. This applies to both clinical trials and observational studies, including those using real-world evidence (RWE).

IRB approval is required because observational studies may involve the collection of personal or sensitive information from study participants, or the implementation of interventions or procedures that may pose risks to participants. IRBs review study protocols to ensure that the study design is scientifically sound, that the risks to participants are minimized, and that the potential benefits of the study outweigh any potential harms.

However, there are some exceptions to this requirement for IRB approval. For example, if the RWE study uses de-identified data and does not involve any interventions or interactions with human subjects, IRB approval may not be required. Additionally, certain types of RWE studies may be exempt from IRB review under certain circumstances, such as studies that use existing data and do not involve the collection of new data from human subjects.

It is important to note that the specific requirements for IRB approval may vary by country or region, and by the specific study design and research question. Therefore, it is important to consult with local regulations and guidelines, as well as with an IRB or ethics committee, to determine whether IRB approval is required for a specific observational study using RWE.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – Do I Need IRB Approval for My Observational Study?2023-08-07T22:42:37+00:00

RWE 101 – The Evolution of Real World Evidence Regulations

RWE 101 – The Evolution of Real World Evidence Regulations

Real-world evidence (RWE) has become an increasingly important source of data for regulatory decision-making in healthcare. The evolution of RWE regulations can be traced back to the late 1990s, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to encourage the use of observational studies, such as registries and natural history studies, to supplement clinical trial data in the evaluation of medical products.

In 2011, the FDA launched the Sentinel Initiative, a program that uses electronic health records and other healthcare data sources to monitor the safety of medical products in real time. This initiative paved the way for the use of RWE in regulatory decision-making, and led to the development of guidelines and frameworks for the use of RWE in drug development and regulatory decision-making.

In 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law in the US, which included provisions to support the use of RWE in regulatory decision-making. The Act directed the FDA to establish a program to evaluate the potential use of RWE to support drug approvals, and to issue guidance on the use of RWE in regulatory decision-making.

In 2018, the FDA issued its first guidance on the use of RWE to support drug approvals, which outlined the types of RWE that could be used, the study designs that could be employed, and the factors that would be considered in the evaluation of RWE. The guidance also emphasized the importance of ensuring the quality and reliability of RWE, and the need for transparent reporting and validation of RWE studies.

Since then, regulatory agencies around the world have continued to develop guidelines and frameworks for the use of RWE in regulatory decision-making. For example, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has established a framework for the use of RWE in the evaluation of medicines, which includes the use of RWE to support marketing authorizations and post-authorization safety monitoring.

Overall, the evolution of RWE regulations reflects the growing recognition of the value of real-world data in healthcare decision-making, and the need for guidelines and frameworks to ensure the quality and reliability of RWE studies.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – The Evolution of Real World Evidence Regulations2023-08-07T22:41:24+00:00

RWE 101 – Is Real World Evidence a Replacement for Clinical Trials?

RWE 101 – Is Real World Evidence a Replacement for Clinical Trials?

Real world evidence (RWE) is not a replacement for clinical trials. Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for assessing the safety and efficacy of medical treatments because they are designed to control for various factors that could influence the results, such as confounding variables and bias. In contrast, RWE is based on observations and data collected from real-world settings, where there may be many confounding factors that can affect the outcomes.

However, RWE can complement clinical trials by providing additional insights into the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments in real-world settings. RWE can help to identify potential safety concerns, as well as provide information about the effectiveness of treatments in patient populations that may not have been included in the clinical trials.

Furthermore, RWE can also help to inform the design of future clinical trials by providing information about the natural history of diseases and the characteristics of patient populations. RWE can also help to identify potential subgroups of patients that may benefit more from certain treatments.

In summary, RWE is not a replacement for clinical trials, but it can provide valuable complementary information to help inform clinical decision-making and optimize the use of medical treatments.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – Is Real World Evidence a Replacement for Clinical Trials?2023-08-07T22:40:10+00:00

RWE 101 – How Robust is RWE?

RWE 101 – How Robust is RWE?

Real world evidence (RWE) is evidence that is collected outside of traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as observational studies and patient registries. While RWE can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments in real-world settings, its robustness can vary depending on a number of factors.

One important factor to consider is the quality of the data sources used to generate RWE. RWE that is based on high-quality, comprehensive data sources such as electronic health records (EHRs) or administrative claims databases may be more robust than RWE that is based on smaller or less comprehensive data sources. Additionally, RWE that is collected using standardized protocols and methods may be more robust than RWE that is collected in an ad hoc or inconsistent manner.

Another important factor to consider is the potential for bias in RWE. Observational studies and other forms of RWE are subject to a number of biases, such as selection bias and confounding, that can affect the accuracy of their findings. While methods such as propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses can help to mitigate these biases, it is important to be aware of their potential impact on the robustness of RWE.

Ultimately, the robustness of RWE will depend on a number of factors, including the quality of the data sources, the methods used to collect and analyze the data, and the potential for bias. While RWE can provide valuable insights into the real-world effectiveness and safety of medical treatments, it should be interpreted with caution and in the context of other available evidence.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – How Robust is RWE?2023-08-07T22:39:01+00:00

RWE 101 – What is the Connection between Real World Data (RWD) and Real World Evidence (RWE)?

RWE 101 – 4 Potential Uses for Improving Drug Development

Real world data (RWD) refers to any data that is generated outside of a clinical trial setting, such as data collected from electronic health records (EHRs), claims data, and data from wearables and mobile devices. Real world evidence (RWE), on the other hand, is the evidence that is derived from the analysis of RWD, and is used to inform decisions about healthcare interventions.

In other words, RWE is the result of the analysis of RWD in order to generate evidence that can be used to support decision-making in healthcare. RWE is increasingly being used to complement traditional clinical trial data, as it allows for a broader understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments in real-world settings, beyond the controlled environment of clinical trials.

For example, RWE can be used to assess the effectiveness of a new drug in a real-world population, by analyzing the outcomes of patients who have received the drug outside of a clinical trial. This can provide valuable insights into the drug’s real-world performance, and help inform clinical practice and regulatory decisions.

Overall, the connection between real-world data and real-world evidence is that RWE is the result of the analysis of RWD, and is used to generate evidence that can be used to inform decisions about healthcare interventions.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – What is the Connection between Real World Data (RWD) and Real World Evidence (RWE)?2023-08-07T22:37:34+00:00

RWE 101 – The Role of RWE in the Context of Digital Health

RWE 101 – The Role of RWE in the Context of Digital Health

Digital health refers to the use of digital technologies, such as mobile devices, wearables, and health apps, to improve healthcare delivery, patient outcomes, and population health. Real-world evidence (RWE), on the other hand, refers to data generated from real-world settings, including electronic health records, claims data, patient-generated data, and data from wearable devices, among others.

In the context of digital health, RWE plays a crucial role in demonstrating the value and effectiveness of digital health interventions. For instance, RWE can be used to evaluate the impact of a mobile health app on patient outcomes, such as improved medication adherence or reduced hospital readmissions. RWE can also be used to identify patient populations that may benefit the most from digital health interventions, as well as to assess the feasibility and scalability of such interventions in real-world settings.

Furthermore, RWE can inform regulatory decision-making around digital health products, such as the approval and reimbursement of digital health interventions. For example, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a framework for the use of RWE in regulatory decision-making, which includes the use of RWE to support the approval of digital health products.

Overall, digital health and RWE are closely intertwined, with RWE serving as a key component in the development, evaluation, and implementation of digital health interventions.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – The Role of RWE in the Context of Digital Health2023-08-07T22:36:18+00:00

RWE 101 – Purpose of Real World Evidence

RWE 101 – Purpose of Real World Evidence

The purpose of real-world evidence (RWE) is to provide insights into the safety, effectiveness, and value of medical products and interventions outside of the controlled environment of clinical trials. RWE is generated by collecting data from various sources, such as electronic health records, claims data, patient-generated data, and social media.

RWE is increasingly being used by healthcare stakeholders, such as regulatory agencies, payers, providers, and patients, to make informed decisions about healthcare products and interventions. For example, regulatory agencies may use RWE to supplement the evidence from clinical trials and to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical products in real-world settings. Payers may use RWE to make coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the value of medical products and interventions. Providers may use RWE to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. Patients may use RWE to make more informed decisions about their own healthcare.

Overall, RWE can provide a more complete picture of the benefits and risks of medical products and interventions in real-world settings, which can lead to better healthcare decision-making and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Share this story...

RWE 101 – Purpose of Real World Evidence2023-08-07T22:34:53+00:00
Go to Top