EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making

Abstract

IntroductionA review of European Union (EU)-funded initiatives linked to ‘Real World Evidence’ (RWE) was performed to determine whether their outputs could be used for the generation of real-world data able to support the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s regulatory decision-making on medicines.MethodThe initiatives were identified from publicly available websites. Their topics were categorised into five areas: ‘Data source’, ‘Methodology’, ‘Governance model’, ‘Analytical model’ and ‘Infrastructure’. To assess their immediate relevance for medicines evaluation, their therapeutic areas were compared with the products recommended for EU approval in 2016 and those included in the EMA pharmaceutical business pipeline.ResultsOf 171 originally identified EU-funded initiatives, 65 were selected based on their primary and secondary objectives (35 ‘Data source’ initiatives, 15 ‘Methodology’, 10 ‘Governance model’, 17 ‘Analytical model’ and 25 ‘Infrastructure’). These 65 initiatives received over 734 million Euros of public funding. At the time of evaluation, the published outputs of the 40 completed initiatives did not always match their original objectives. Overall, public information was limited, data access was not explicit and their sustainability was unclear. The topics matched 8 of 14 therapeutic areas of the products recommended for approval in 2016 and 8 of 15 therapeutic areas in the 2017–2019 pharmaceutical business pipeline. Haematology, gastroenterology or cardiovascular systems were poorly represented.ConclusionsThis landscape of EU-funded initiatives linked to RWE which started before 31 December 2016 highlighted that the immediate utilisation of their outputs to support regulatory decision-making is limited, often due to insufficient available information and to discrepancies between outputs and objectives. Furthermore, the restricted sustainability of the initiatives impacts on their downstream utility. Multiple projects focussing on the same therapeutic areas increase the likelihood of duplication of both efforts and resources. These issues contribute to gaps in generating RWE for medicines and diminish returns on the public funds invested.

Statins and risk of thromboembolism: A meta-regression to disentangle the efficacy-to-effectiveness gap using observational and trial evidence

“…[6] The growing interest is exemplified by several studies investigating the effectiveness of treatments using real-world data, [16][17][18] in line with the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency guidance about the use of real-world data to support regulatory decision-making. [19,20] In parallel with regulatory advances, there is also an increasing research interest in analytical tools to simulate randomised experiments using non-randomised data, in particular to account for the baseline imbalance of risk factors which could act as confounders on the association between treatment and outcome.…”

Big Data – How to Realize the Promise

“…Agreement of minimal data elements for specific disease areas would additionally support harmonization and pooling of datasets. It is notable that Europe has failed to define a clear path to enable the sustainability of many previous data sharing efforts, particularly for observational healthcare data, and defining this should be a priority in the future . It must be appreciated that a data platform requires resources beyond the initial investment and must encompass ongoing funding to enable the continual update and validation of these dynamic datasets.…”

“…It is notable that Europe has failed to define a clear path to enable the sustainability of many previous data sharing efforts, particularly for observational healthcare data, and defining this should be a priority in the future. 33 It must be appreciated that a data platform requires resources beyond the initial investment and must encompass ongoing funding to enable the continual update and validation of these dynamic datasets. A more coordinated mechanism for funding infrastructure platforms across Europe may allow the provision of continued funding for those platforms that can demonstrate the greatest impact.…”

Recognizing that Evidence is Made, not Born

“… conceptual and practical innovations and paradigm shifts in methodological and analytical approaches to therapeutic product development; highly strategic and structured research approaches; structured regulatory “benefit‐risk” and uncertainty assessment and management; structured decision‐making approaches; patient‐focused product development; precision and personalized medicine strategies; structured HTA/payer‐led scientific advice and value‐based frameworks and agreements; seamless, “efficacy‐to‐effectiveness” models; real‐world data and evidence innovations across product life‐cycle; collaborative, facilitated pathways, and platforms for therapeutic product development, regulation, and reimbursement …”