Search

Regulatory agencies are increasingly considering real‐world evidence (RWE) to support label expansions of approved medicines. We conducted a comparative effectiveness study to emulate a proposed randomized trial of romiplostim vs. standard‐of‐care (SOC) therapy among patients with recently diagnosed (≤12 months) immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), that could support expansion of the romiplostim label. We discuss challenges that we encountered and solutions that were developed to address those challenges. Study size was a primary concern, particularly for romiplostim initiators, given the rarity of ITP and the stringent trial eligibility criteria. For this reason, we leveraged multiple data sources (Nordic Country Patient Registry for Romiplostim; chart review study of romiplostim initiators in Europe; Flatiron Health EMR linked with MarketScan claims). Additionally, unlike the strictly controlled clinical trial setting, platelet counts were not measured at regular intervals in the observational data sources, and therefore the end point of durable platelet response often used in trials could not be reliably measured. Instead, the median platelet count was chosen as the primary end point. Ultimately, while we observed a slightly higher median platelet count in the romiplostim group vs. SOC, precision was limited because of small study size (median difference was 11 × 109/L (95% CI: −59, 81)). We underscore the importance of conducting comprehensive feasibility assessments to identify fit‐for‐purpose data sources with sufficient sample size, data elements, and follow‐up. Beyond technical challenges, we also discuss approaches to increase the credibility of RWE, including systematic incorporation of clinical expertise into study design decisions, and separation between decision makers and the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Romiplostim has been approved in Europe since 2009 to treat patients with chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Using real-world data from seven European countries, we measured the effectiveness and safety outcomes within 24 weeks following romiplostim initiation by duration of ITP: less than 3 months ("newly diagnosed"), 3-12 months ("persistent"), and more than 12 months ("chronic").Methods: Adults with ITP and ≥ 1 romiplostim administration between 2009 and 2012 were included. Endpoints included durable platelet response, median platelet count, rescue therapy, bleeding and adverse events. We used inverse probability of censoring weighted estimators to estimate cumulative risk of each outcome. There were 64 newly diagnosed, 50 persistent, and 226 chronic ITP patients at romiplostim initiation.Results: Durable platelet response at 24 weeks ranged from 32% [confidence interval (CI): 18-46%] in newly diagnosed patients to 53% (CI 37-68%) in persistent patients. Median platelet count during follow-up ranged from 88 (CI 80-96) × 109/L in chronic patients to 131 (CI 102-160) × 109/L in newly diagnosed patients.Conclusion: Regardless of ITP duration, over half of patients discontinued concomitant ITP medications. Few adverse events were observed. Although only approved for chronic patients, estimates of the romiplostim treatment effect were similar across patients being managed in European clinical practice, regardless of ITP duration at romiplostim initiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]