Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings
- PMID: 34084785
- PMCID: PMC8165374
- DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00966-2020
Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings
Abstract
Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.
Copyright ©The authors 2021.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: C. Harvey reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: A. Woodcock reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and a speaker fee and expenses ($3491.62) from GlaxoSmithKline, and advisory fees and expenses ($4998.95) from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. He is also chairman/shareholder of Reacta Biotech, a university spinout manufacturing food challenge materials for allergy. Conflict of interest: J. Vestbo reports fees for attending six steering committee meetings over the study period from GlaxoSmithKline; and consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programmes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureaus from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programmes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureau, and a biomarker study grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, and consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureaus from Novartis and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Crim reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: L. Frith reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: N.D. Bakerly reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, support for congress attendance from Boehringer Ingelheim, and grants and personal fees from Almirall/AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.P. New reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: C. Williams reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; in addition, she was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the Salford Lung Studies. Conflict of interest: H. Elkhenini reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: N. Majeed reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: G. Cardwell reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and he is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: S. Collier reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: L. Jacques reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: J. Fletcher reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline.
Figures


References
-
- Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2020 report). https://goldcopd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GOLD-2020-REPORT-ver1.0w... Date last accessed: April 13, 2021. - PubMed
-
- Global Initiative for Asthma . Global strategy for asthma management and prevention (2019 update). https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GINA-2019-main-report-J... Date last accessed: April 13, 2021.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources