Purpose:Selection of osteoporosis (OP) treatment is affected by patients' disease severity and fracture risk, potentially confounding real-world comparative effectiveness and safety studies of antiresorptive medications. To inform the choice of valid treatment contrasts for subsequent real-world comparative studies, we assessed comparability of antiresorptive OP treatment groups using negative control outcomes (NCOs). Patients and Methods:Women aged ≥55 years in Optum© Clinformatics® Data Mart from October 2010 through June 2019 who received denosumab, zoledronic acid (ZA), or oral bisphosphonates (BPs) were included. We estimated the 1-year cumulative risks for 12 NCOs by treatment group among treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced women using augmented inverse-probability of treatment and censoring weighted (AIPW) estimation. A Bayesian sensitivity analysis was conducted to aggregate estimates and associated variances into a form characterized by magnitude and probability. Results:Women in both treatment-naïve (n = 199,335) and treatment-experienced (n = 33,296) cohorts initiated treatment at a mean age of 71.8 years. Treatment-naïve women initiating denosumab had similar 1-year risks of most NCOs compared with initiators of ZA (maximum observed RD = 2.47% for colon cancer screening). However, significant risk differences were observed for seven NCOs when comparing ZA or denosumab with oral BPs. Among treatment-experienced women, all NCOs indicated similar risks when comparing denosumab to alendronate alone. Only one NCO (dementia: RD = 0.42%) was associated with treatment when comparing denosumab to oral BPs, and one (influenza vaccine: RD = 3.57%) was associated with treatment when comparing ZA to oral BPs. Results of the Bayesian analysis aligned with our qualitative interpretations. Conclusion:Comparative studies including denosumab or ZA versus oral BPs among treatment-experienced, commercially insured women aged ≥55 years in the United States are likely valid with respect to comparability of treatment groups. Our results do not support conducting observational studies examining these treatment contrasts in the overall treatment-naïve population. However, comparison of ZA and oral BPs among treatment-naïve women with a prior fracture may be undertaken with minimal expected residual bias.

IntroductionRegulatory agencies may require industry sponsors of new drugs or biologics to conduct clinical trials that assess the benefits versus the risks of these new medicines in pediatric patients as a means of facilitating their development and availability for children when there is a medical need. Amgen Inc. (henceforth "the company") agreed to conduct a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) in pediatric subjects with Glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis (GiOP) under a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) and Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), respectively, as one of the pediatric studies that were a condition of registration for Prolia (denosumab). Enrollment of pediatric subjects with GiOP into the agreed clinical study was exceedingly low despite the implementation of multiple mitigation measures. As a result, the company explored the use of real-world epidemiological analyses of the disease in children with GiOP for further insight into the clinical feasibility challenges with the RCT design.Materials and MethodsWe initiated a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of denosumab in pediatric subjects with GiOP (Study 20140444). Following difficulties in recruiting we re-assessed the enrollment potential and overall clinical trial feasibility of Study 20140444 using real-world epidemiological analyses evaluating the size of the pediatric GiOP population using real-world data (RWD) from 3 different databases: (1) the US MarketScan, (2) the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), and (3) the IQVIA Disease Analyzer (Germany).ResultsThe results from the RWD show that very few pediatric patients met the clinical diagnosis of GiOP, irrespective of the database used. In sum, approximately 1 eligible subject per 1,000,000 people per year was estimated to be available for Study 20140444.Conclusions and RecommendationsThe results suggest a lack of feasibility of conducting an adequate and well-controlled randomized trial in a population of pediatric patients with GiOP. The results also called into question the feasibility of other types of clinical trial designs, including potential single-arm or hybrid study designs, to fulfill the regulatory requirements. Recommendations include considering the use of RWD-based epidemiological analyses prior to agreeing with health authorities to conduct postmarketing required pediatric studies or studies in other rare diseases. This approach to clinical trial feasibility using RWD helps ensure research goals are balanced with the needs of the individual patient, further ensuring the ethical conduct of clinical trials.Clinical Trial Registration (Study 20140444)ClinicalTrials.gov / NCT03164928 / URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/search? term=NCT03164928. EudraCT / 2016-003083-39 / URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search? query=2016-003083-39.

A compilation of factors over the past decade—including the availability of increasingly large and rich healthcare datasets, advanced technologies to extract unstructured information from health records and digital sources, advancement of principled study design and analytic methods to emulate clinical trials, and frameworks to support transparent study conduct—has ushered in a new era of real-world evidence (RWE). This review article describes the evolution of the RWE era, including pharmacoepidemiologic methods designed to support causal inferences regarding treatment effects, the role of regulators and other health authorities in establishing distributed real-world data networks enabling analytics at scale, and the many global guidance documents on principled methods of producing RWE. This article also highlights the growing opportunity for RWE to support decision making by regulators, health technology assessment groups, clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders and provides examples of influential RWE studies. RWE holds promise to address important questions that clinical trials typically do not answer about treatment benefits and risks, and to ultimately impact public health by helping to guide decision making across the healthcare ecosystem.

Importance While it is well known that data quality underlies evidence validity, the measurement and impacts of data reliability are less well understood. The need has been highlighted in the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Real-World Evidence Program framework in 2018, draft guidance in 2021 and final guidance in 2024. Timely visibility into implementation may be provided by the Transforming Real-World Evidence With Unstructured and Structured Data to Advance Tailored Therapy (TRUST) study, a Verantos Inc-led FDA-funded demonstration project to explore data quality and inform regulatory decision-making. Objective To report early learnings from the TRUST study on distilling data reliability to practice including developing a practical approach to quantify accuracy, completeness, and traceability of real-world data (routinely collected patient health data) and comparing traditional to advanced data and technologies on these dimensions. Design, Setting, and Participants This quality improvement study was performed using data from 58 hospitals and more than 1180 associated outpatient clinics from academic and community settings in the US. Participants included patients with asthma treated between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from January 1 to June 30, 2024. Exposures The traditional approach used medical and pharmacy claims as source documentation. The advanced approach used medical and pharmacy claims, electronic health records with unstructured data extracted using artificial intelligence methods, and mortality registry data. Main Outcomes and Measures Accuracy was assessed using the F1 score. Completeness was estimated as a weighted mean of available data sources during each calendar year under study for each patient. Traceability was estimated as the proportion of data elements identified in clinical source documentation. Results In total, 120 616 patients met the minimum data requirements (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [18.5] years; 41 011 male [34.0%]). For accuracy, traditional approaches had F1 scores of 59.5% and advanced approaches had scores of 93.4%. For completeness, traditional approaches yielded mean scores of 46.1% (95% CI, 38.2%-54.0%); advanced approaches, 96.6% (95% CI, 85.8%-1.1%). For traceability, traditional approaches had 11.5% (95% CI, 11.4%-11.5%) and advanced approaches had 77.3% (95% CI, 77.3%-77.3%) of data elements traceable to clinical source data. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, practical implementation of data reliability measurement is described. Findings suggest the potential of using multiple data sources and applying advanced methods to increase real-world data reliability. The inclusion of data reliability standards when generating evidence from these sources has the potential to strengthen support for the use of real-world evidence in the prescription, reimbursement, and approval of medications.

Journal Article Accepted manuscript RE: "Invited Commentary: Influence of Incomplete Death Information on Cumulative Risk Estimates in United States Claims Data" Get access Julie Barberio, Julie Barberio Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA and Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA Correspondence Address: Julie Barberio, Department of Epidemiology Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30322 ([email protected]) Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Ashley I Naimi, Ashley I Naimi Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Rachel E Patzer, Rachel E Patzer Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA and Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Christopher Kim, Christopher Kim Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Rohini K Hernandez, Rohini K Hernandez Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar M Alan Brookhart, M Alan Brookhart Target RWE/NoviSci, Inc, Chapel Hill, NC and Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar David Gilbertson, David Gilbertson Chronic Disease Research Group, Minneapolis, MN Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Brian D Bradbury, Brian D Bradbury Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CADepartment of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Timothy L Lash Timothy L Lash Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar American Journal of Epidemiology, kwae229, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae229 Published: 03 January 2025

Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab significantly increases bone mineral density at key skeletal sites more than oral bisphosphonates, evidence is lacking from head-to-head randomized trials evaluating fracture outcomes. This retrospective cohort study uses administrative claims data from Medicare fee-for service beneficiaries to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate in reducing fracture risk among women with PMO in the US. Women with PMO ≥ 66 yr of age with no prior history of osteoporosis treatment, who initiated denosumab (n = 89 115) or alendronate (n = 389 536) from 2012 to 2018, were followed from treatment initiation until the first of a specific fracture outcome, treatment discontinuation or switch, end of study (December 31, 2019), or other censoring criteria. A doubly robust inverse-probability of treatment and censoring weighted function was used to estimate the risk ratio associated with the use of denosumab compared with alendronate for hip, nonvertebral (NV; includes hip, humerus, pelvis, radius/ulna, other femur), non-hip nonvertebral (NHNV), hospitalized vertebral (HV), and major osteoporotic (MOP; consisting of NV and HV) fractures. Overall, denosumab reduced the risk of MOP by 39%, hip by 36%, NV by 43%, NHNV by 50%, and HV fractures by 30% compared with alendronate. Denosumab reduced the risk of MOP fractures by 9% at year 1, 12% at year 2, 18% at year 3, and 31% at year 5. An increase in the magnitude of fracture risk reduction with increasing duration of exposure was also observed for other NV fracture outcomes. In this cohort of almost half-a-million treatment-naive women with PMO, we observed clinically significant reductions in the risk of MOP, hip, NV, NHNV, and HV fractures for patients on denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk.

Administrative claims databases often do not capture date or fact of death, so studies using these data may inappropriately treat death as a censoring event-equivalent to other withdrawal reasons-rather than a competing event. We examined 1-, 3-, and 5-year inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted cumulative risks of a composite cardiovascular outcome among 34 527 initiators of telmisartan (exposure) and ramipril (referent), who were aged ≥55 years, in Optum (United States) claims data from 2003 to 2020. Differences in cumulative risks of the cardiovascular endpoint due to censoring of death (cause-specific), as compared with treating death as a competing event (subdistribution), increased with greater follow-up time and older age, where event and mortality risks were higher. Among ramipril users, 5-year cause-specific and subdistribution cumulative risk estimates per 100, respectively, were 16.4 (95% CI, 15.3-17.5) and 16.2 (95% CI, 15.1-17.3) among ages 55-64 (difference = 0.2) and were 43.2 (95% CI, 41.3-45.2) and 39.7 (95% CI, 37.9-41.4) among ages ≥75 (difference = 3.6). Plasmode simulation results demonstrated the differences in cause-specific versus subdistribution cumulative risks to increase with increasing mortality rate. We suggest researchers consider the cohort's baseline mortality risk when deciding whether real-world data with incomplete death information can be used without concern. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.

ABSTRACT It is often difficult to obtain valid estimates of comparative treatment effectiveness and safety owing to differences across patient populations taking different medications in the real world. One approach for assessing comparability between treatment groups in effectiveness studies is to use negative control outcomes (NCOs). NCOs share similar sources of bias with the primary outcomes but have no plausible causal relationship to the treatment of interest. Observing differences in the risk of NCOs thus provides evidence for residual confounding between groups. This retrospective study assessed the comparability of postmenopausal women, treated with osteoporosis medications with various mechanisms of action such as denosumab (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand [RANKL] inhibitor), zoledronic acid (bisphosphonate derivative), or oral bisphosphonates including alendronate. Administrative claims data were extracted from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Warehouse database (May 2010–December 2016). Propensity scores were used to match denosumab patients 1:1 to comparators. Four nonfracture NCOs and three early fracture NCOs (before substantial biologic effects of treatment would be expected) were assessed over 1-year and 3-month follow-up periods, respectively. According to comparability decision rules established a priori, patients initiating denosumab were comparable to those initiating zoledronic acid or alendronate, irrespective of prior osteoporosis treatment experience. Among new users, new switchers, and in the historical fracture subgroup, no meaningful differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of the seven NCOs comparing denosumab to zoledronic acid. This empirical examination can assist in the selection of appropriate comparator groups for future comparability research using real-world data. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

PURPOSE:This narrative review describes the application of negative control outcome (NCO) methods to assess potential bias due to unmeasured or mismeasured confounders in non-randomized comparisons of drug effectiveness and safety. An NCO is assumed to have no causal relationship with a treatment under study while subject to the same confounding structure as the treatment and outcome of interest; an association between treatment and NCO then reflects the potential for uncontrolled confounding between treatment and outcome. METHODS:We focus on two recently completed NCO studies that assessed the comparability of outcome risk for patients initiating different osteoporosis medications and lipid-lowering therapies, illustrating several ways in which confounding may result. In these studies, NCO methods were implemented in claims-based data sources, with the results used to guide the decision to proceed with comparative effectiveness or safety analyses. RESULTS:Based on this research, we provide recommendations for future NCO studies, including considerations for the identification of confounding mechanisms in the target patient population, the selection of NCOs expected to satisfy required assumptions, the interpretation of NCO effect estimates, and the mitigation of uncontrolled confounding detected in NCO analyses. We propose the use of NCO studies prior to initiating comparative effectiveness or safety research, providing information on the potential presence of uncontrolled confounding in those comparative analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Given the increasing use of non-randomized designs for regulatory decision-making, the application of NCO methods will strengthen study design, analysis, and interpretation of real-world data and the credibility of the resulting real-world evidence.

ABSTRACT In this international study, we examined the incidence of hip fractures, postfracture treatment, and all‐cause mortality following hip fractures, based on demographics, geography, and calendar year. We used patient‐level healthcare data from 19 countries and regions to identify patients aged 50 years and older hospitalized with a hip fracture from 2005 to 2018. The age‐ and sex‐standardized incidence rates of hip fractures, post‐hip fracture treatment (defined as the proportion of patients receiving anti‐osteoporosis medication with various mechanisms of action [bisphosphonates, denosumab, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, or teriparatide] following a hip fracture), and the all‐cause mortality rates after hip fractures were estimated using a standardized protocol and common data model. The number of hip fractures in 2050 was projected based on trends in the incidence and estimated future population demographics. In total, 4,115,046 hip fractures were identified from 20 databases. The reported age‐ and sex‐standardized incidence rates of hip fractures ranged from 95.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.8–95.4) in Brazil to 315.9 (95% CI 314.0–317.7) in Denmark per 100,000 population. Incidence rates decreased over the study period in most countries; however, the estimated total annual number of hip fractures nearly doubled from 2018 to 2050. Within 1 year following a hip fracture, post‐hip fracture treatment ranged from 11.5% (95% CI 11.1% to 11.9%) in Germany to 50.3% (95% CI 50.0% to 50.7%) in the United Kingdom, and all‐cause mortality rates ranged from 14.4% (95% CI 14.0% to 14.8%) in Singapore to 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.6%) in the United Kingdom. Males had lower use of anti‐osteoporosis medication than females, higher rates of all‐cause mortality, and a larger increase in the projected number of hip fractures by 2050. Substantial variations exist in the global epidemiology of hip fractures and postfracture outcomes. Our findings inform possible actions to reduce the projected public health burden of osteoporotic fractures among the aging population. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Real-world data (RWD) from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative claims databases are used increasingly to generate real-world evidence (RWE). RWE is used to support clinical evidence packages for medicines that inform decision-makers. In this review of current issues in the use of RWD-derived external comparator groups to support regulatory filings, we assess a series of topics that generally apply across many disease indications. However, most of the examples and illustrations focus on the oncology clinical research setting. The topics include an overview of current uses of RWD in drug development, a discussion of regulatory filings using RWD-derived external comparators, a brief overview of guidance documents and white papers pertaining to external comparators, a summary of some limitations and methodological issues in the use of external comparator groups and finally, a look at the future of this area and recommendations.

Purpose Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is common among dialysis patients, and calcimimetics are a mainstay of treatment. This study assessed whether cinacalcet use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding in a large hemodialysis cohort. Methods A linked database of clinical records and medical claims for patients receiving hemodialysis in a large dialysis organization, 2007-2010, was used. A nested case-control study was performed among patients aged >= 18 years who had received hemodialysis for >= 90 days, had Medicare Parts A, B, and D coverage for >= 1 year, and had clinical evidence of SHPT (parathyroid hormone >300 pg/mL). Cases were those who experienced death or hospitalization caused by gastrointestinal bleeding. Each case was matched to up to four controls. Exposure was measured by any cinacalcet use, current use, past use, cumulative exposure days, and cumulative dosage. Conditional logistic models were used to assess the association. Results Of 48 437 patients included, 2570 experienced gastrointestinal bleeding events (2498 non-fatal, 72 fatal), and 2465 (2397 non-fatal, 68 fatal) were matched to 9500 controls; 17.2% of cases and 15.8% of controls had cinacalcet exposure and 11.1% of both cases and controls had current use. The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) of gastrointestinal bleeding for any use, current use, and past use of cinacalcet were 1.04 (0.91-1.19), 0.97 (0.83-1.13), and 1.22 (0.99-1.50), respectively, with no use as the reference. Conclusion The results do not suggest an elevated risk of gastrointestinal bleeding resulting in hospitalization or death for hemodialysis patients exposed to cinacalcet.

Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10–20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN. Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013–2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014–2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles. Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR. Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

Evaluation of drug safety during pregnancy is dependent on the number of exposed women during routine clinical practice with data available for analysis. We examined medication fills in pregnant and nonpregnant women within select disease cohorts: general population, migraine, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia to explore the potential use of claims data to assess medication use and safety during pregnancy. This cohort study, using IBM MarketScan® Research Databases claims data, included women 10–54 years of age with pregnancy resulting in a liveborn infant between January 2010 and September 2015 and matched nonpregnant women. Medication use (antidepressants, antihypertensives, sedatives, glucose-lowering medications, antiepileptics, antipsychotics, lipid-lowering medications) was abstracted from pharmacy claims 180 days before last menstrual period through 180 days postdelivery. Among 753,760 women in the general pregnancy population (including 73,268 migraine, 50,155 hyperlipidemia, and 8361 diabetes; non-exclusive cohorts), antidepressants, antihypertensives, and sedatives were the most commonly used medications during pregnancy. Medications of interest were less commonly used in the pregnancy cohort than in the matched nonpregnant cohort within each time period (e.g., 3.7

Objectives To examine the temporal patterns of patient characteristics, treatments used and outcomes associated with COVID-19 in patients who were hospitalised for the disease between January and 15 November 2020. Design Observational cohort study. Setting COVID-19 subset of the Optum deidentified electronic health records, including more than 1.8 million patients from across the USA. Participants There were 51 510 hospitalised patients who met the COVID-19 definition, with 37 617 in the laboratory positive cohort and 13 893 in the clinical cohort. Primary and secondary outcome measures Incident acute clinical outcomes, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results Respectively, 48% and 49% of the laboratory positive and clinical cohorts were women. The 50- 65 age group was the median age group for both cohorts. The use of antivirals and dexamethasone increased over time, fivefold and twofold, respectively, while the use of hydroxychloroquine declined by 98%. Among adult patients in the laboratory positive cohort, absolute age/sex standardised incidence proportion for in-hospital death changed by -0.036 per month (95% CI -0.042 to -0.031) from March to June 2020, but remained fairly flat from June to November, 2020 (0.001 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.003), 17.5% (660 deaths /3986 persons) in March and 10.2% (580/5137) in October); in the clinical cohort, the corresponding changes were -0.024 (95% CI -0.032 to -0.015) and 0.011 (95% CI 0.007 0.014), respectively (14.8% (175/1252) in March, 15.3% (189/1203) in October). Declines in the cumulative incidence of most acute clinical outcomes were observed in the laboratory positive cohort, but not for the clinical cohort. Conclusion The incidence of adverse clinical outcomes remains high among COVID-19 patients with clinical diagnosis only. Patients with COVID-19 entering the hospital are at elevated risk of adverse outcomes.