Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Apr 21;5(1):e000788.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000788. eCollection 2018.

Strengths and weaknesses of 'real-world' studies involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Affiliations
Review

Strengths and weaknesses of 'real-world' studies involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

A John Camm et al. Open Heart. .

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the reference standard for comparing the efficacy of one therapy or intervention with another. However, RCTs have restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria; thus, they are not fully representative of an unselected real-world population. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies encompass a wide range of research methodologies and data sources and can be broadly categorised as non-interventional studies, patient registries, claims database studies, patient surveys and electronic health record studies. If appropriately designed, RWE studies include a patient population that is far more representative of unselected patient populations than those of RCTs, but they do not provide a robust basis for comparing treatment strategies. RWE studies can have very large sample sizes, can provide information on treatments in patient groups that are usually excluded from RCTs, are generally less expensive and quicker than RCTs, and can assess a broad range of outcomes. Limitations of RWE studies can include low internal validity, lack of quality control surrounding data collection and susceptibility to multiple sources of bias for comparing outcomes. RWE studies can complement the findings from RCTs by providing valuable information on treatment practices and patient characteristics among unselected patients. This information is necessary to guide treatment decisions and for reimbursement and payment decisions. RWE studies have been extensively applied in the postmarketing approval assessment of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants since 2010. However, the benefits, costs, limitations and methodological challenges associated with the different types of RWE must be considered carefully when interpreting the findings.

Keywords: anticoagulant; limitations; real-world evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AJC has received research grants and speaker’s honoraria, and participated in scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. KAAF has received grants and honoraria from Bayer and Janssen.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration to highlight the design and analysis time frame (relative to the study start or index date) of different types of real-world evidence studies. Arrows depict prospective or retrospective studies of various durations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:423–34. - PubMed
    1. Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al. . Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 2007;10:326–35. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). The vision for real world data – harnessing the opportunities in the UK. Demonstrating value with real world data. London, UK: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 2011.
    1. Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K, et al. . Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research. BMJ 2013;347:f6409 10.1136/bmj.f6409 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cohen AT, Goto S, Schreiber K, et al. . Why do we need observational studies of everyday patients in the real-life setting?: Table 1. European Heart Journal Supplements 2015;17:D2–D8. 10.1093/eurheartj/suv035 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources