Search

Real-world data (RWD) can provide intel (real-world evidence, RWE) for research and development, as well as policy and regulatory decision-making along the full spectrum of health care. Despite calls from global regulators for international collaborations to integrate RWE into regulatory decision-making and to bridge knowledge gaps, some challenges remain. In this work, we performed an evaluation of Austrian RWD sources using a multilateral query approach, crosschecked against previously published RWD criteria and conducted direct interviews with representative RWD source samples. This article provides an overview of 73 out of 104 RWD sources in a national legislative setting where major attempts are made to enable secondary use of RWD (e.g. law on the organisation of research, "Forschungsorganisationsgesetz"). We were able to detect omnipresent challenges associated with data silos, variable standardisation efforts and governance issues. Our findings suggest a strong need for a national health data strategy and data governance framework, which should inform researchers, as well as policy- and decision-makers, to improve RWD-based research in the healthcare sector to ultimately support actual regulatory decision-making and provide strategic information for governmental health data policies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The efficacy of combined BRAF and MEK inhibition for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in a broad patient population, including subgroups excluded from phase 3 trials, remains unanswered. This noninterventional study (DATUM-NIS) assessed the real-world efficacy, safety and tolerability of dabrafenib plus trametinib in Austrian patients with unresectable/metastatic melanoma., Methods: This multicenter, open-label, non-interventional, post-approval, observational study investigated the effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib prescribed in day-to-day clinical practice to patients ( N  = 79) with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable/metastatic melanoma with M1c disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual version 7), ECOG > 1, and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The primary endpoint was 6-, 12- and 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates. Secondary endpoints were median PFS, disease control rate and overall survival (OS)., Results: The 6-, 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 76%, 30.6% and 16.2%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS benefit in the absence of lung metastasis. The median PFS and OS were 9.1 (95% CI, 7.1-10.3) months and 17.9 (95% CI, 12.7-27.8) months, respectively. The 12- and 24-month OS rates were 62.7% and 26.8%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed significant OS benefits in the absence of bone or lung metastasis and the presence of other metastases (excluding bone, lung, brain, liver and lymph nodes). Furthermore, S100 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) showed a significant impact on survival. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: Despite an unselected population of melanoma patients with higher M1c disease, ECOG PS > 1 and elevated LDH, this real-world study demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for dabrafenib-trametinib., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Real-world data (RWD) collected in routine health care processes and transformed to real-world evidence have become increasingly interesting within the research and medical communities to enhance medical research and support regulatory decision-making. Despite numerous European initiatives, there is still no cross-border consensus or guideline determining which qualities RWD must meet in order to be acceptable for decision-making within regulatory or routine clinical decision support. In the absence of guidelines defining the quality standards for RWD, an overview and first recommendations for quality criteria for RWD in pharmaceutical research and health care decision-making is needed in Austria. An Austrian multistakeholder expert group led by Gesellschaft für Pharmazeutische Medizin (Austrian Society for Pharmaceutical Medicine) met regularly; reviewed and discussed guidelines, frameworks, use cases, or viewpoints; and agreed unanimously on a set of quality criteria for RWD. This consensus statement was derived from the quality criteria for RWD to be used more effectively for medical research purposes beyond the registry-based studies discussed in the European Medicines Agency guideline for registry-based studies. This paper summarizes the recommendations for the quality criteria of RWD, which represents a minimum set of requirements. In order to future-proof registry-based studies, RWD should follow high-quality standards and be subjected to the quality assurance measures needed to underpin data quality. Furthermore, specific RWD quality aspects for individual use cases (eg, medical or pharmacoeconomic research), market authorization processes, or postmarket authorization phases have yet to be elaborated., (©Peter Klimek, Dejan Baltic, Martin Brunner, Alexander Degelsegger-Marquez, Gerhard Garhöfer, Ghazaleh Gouya-Lechner, Arnold Herzog, Bernd Jilma, Stefan Kähler, Veronika Mikl, Bernhard Mraz, Herwig Ostermann, Claas Röhl, Robert Scharinger, Tanja Stamm, Michael Strassnig, Christa Wirthumer-Hoche, Johannes Pleiner-Duxneuner. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 17.06.2022.)

Aims: Modern pharmaceutical product development is a long and complex process associated with significant investments by pharmaceutical companies. The innovative pharmaceutical industry accounts for the vast majority of expenditures in clinical trials of potential new pharmaceuticals and therefore generates economic activity within a country. The aim was to assess the far-reaching economic impact of industry-sponsored clinical-trials (ISCTs) of pharmaceutical products for the healthcare system and the national economy. Materials and methods: The study approach was based on three analytical steps. First, a survey among 15 pharmaceutical companies in Austria was conducted to evaluate the annual number of ISCTs subdivided according to trial phase, therapeutic areas and associated employees. Second, the monetary value of treatments performed in ISCTs was calculated based on a sample of clinical-trial protocols. Finally, the macroeconomic impact, measured in terms of value-added and jobs created by the conducted ISCTs, was calculated using Input-Output analysis by applying an extended Leontief-model. Results: The study demonstrated that €116.22 million spent in ISCTs generated a total value added of €144 million, €74 million direct, in 2018. Each year a medical treatment value of €100 million was financed through 463 ISCTs, with an average value of medical treatment of €37,068 per recruited patient. This represents a significant 0.3% of annual current health-expenditures. In summary, each Euro invested by the pharmaceutical industry in ISCTs generates €1.95 for the Austrian economy. ISCTs also created and secured employment in the extent of 2,021 full-time-equivalents, thus resulting in an employment multiplier of 1.66. Conclusions: In conclusion, conducting clinical-trials by pharmaceutical industry-beside its importance in its own domain-results in tangible benefits and a positive macroeconomic impact that contribute to the sustainability of the Austrian healthcare system by complementing its limited resources. Furthermore, it is a non-negligible factor in locational and industrial policy.

Background: STEPAUT, an Austrian non-interventional study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) recurring/progressing on/after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) in routine clinical practice., Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC progressing on/after NSAIs receiving everolimus plus exemestane in accordance with routine practice and the current version of Summary of Product Characteristics were eligible. Planned individual observation period corresponded to the duration of treatment until formal study end., Results: Overall, 236 patients (median age: 65 years) were enrolled at 17 sites across Austria. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) in the overall population was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6-10.7 months). The mPFS (95% CI) in patients who received everolimus 10 and 5 mg was 9.9 months (7.3-11.5 months) and 8 months (4.7-10.7 months), respectively. The median time to progression was numerically longer in patients who had a therapy break (11.9 months, 95% CI: 10.0-14.6 months) versus those who did not have any therapy break (10.7 months, 95% CI: 8.9-12.6 months). Patients experienced grade 1 (53.7%), grade 2 (35.9%), grade 3 (9.9%), grade 4 (0.2%) adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs of any grade were stomatitis, mucositis (53.8%), rash, exanthema (29.7%), loss of appetite, nausea (28.4%)., Conclusions: Real-world safety and efficacy data from STEPAUT were consistent with results from BOLERO-2, supporting everolimus plus exemestane as a suitable treatment option for HR+, HER2- ABC recurring/progressing on/after NSAIs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest GS has received grants and personal fees from Novartis during the conduct of this study; DE has received personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer and Novartis and personal fees from Roche, Celgene, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work; RB has received grants and personal fees from Novartis during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Celgene, EISAI, Daiichi, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work; GP has received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of this study; EP has received honoraria from Novartis during the conduct of the study; RG has received grant and personal fees from Roche, Celgene, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Merck, Sandoz, outside the conduct of this study; AL has received grants from Novartis during the conduct of the study; KH, MH, and BM report employment with Novartis Pharma GmbH during the conduct of this study; MG has received grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and personal fees from Accelsiors, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Nano String Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment decisions in routine clinical practice are based on reports of clinical trials, which represent highly selected populations. Limited studies reported real-world evidences representing routine clinical practices in patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe. The aim of this retrospective, noninterventional chart review was to collect data on the treatment landscape for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in routine clinical practice in a broader patient population in Austria., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic RCC receiving systemic treatment between June 2010 and June 2016 across 12 centers in Austria were included. Parameters were entered into an electronic case report form from the participating sites via the application Hermesoft electronic data capture system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the 2 primary end points., Results: The median PFS and OS were 12 months and 44 months, respectively (first-line PFS was 14 months for pazopanib and 13 months for sunitinib; first-line OS was 44 months for pazopanib and 48 months for sunitinib). Factors influencing the OS were sex, with female patients at a significantly higher risk than male patients (hazard ratio = 1.719), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 0 increased the risk twice (hazard ratio = 2.048), and number of metastases > 3 before the first line doubled the risk compared to metastases (hazard ratio = 2.064)., Conclusion: OS in this retrospective chart review was considerably longer than the previous reports in real-world patients, underlining the benefit of current RCC treatment options in routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who failed one or two anti-VEGF therapies., Patients and Methods: Data from four prospective, non-interventional studies conducted in Germany, France, Greece and Austria were pooled for this analysis. Patients with mRCC of any histology (clear cell or non-clear cell) were included. VEGF-refractory patients received everolimus 10mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine everolimus efficacy as measured by time to progression (TTP; from baseline to progression)., Results: The overall population comprised 632 patients; 493 patients received everolimus in the second-line setting. Most patients were of favourable/intermediate MSKCC risk (91%), had clear cell mRCC (89%), and had undergone nephrectomy (89%). Median TTP was 6.3months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-6.8) for the overall population and 6.4months (95% CI, 5.8-6.9) for the second-line everolimus population. Similarly, median progression-free survival was 5.5months (95% CI, 5.0-6.1) for the overall population and 5.8months (95% CI, 5.0-6.4) for second-line everolimus population. Best tumour response (n=349) was complete or partial remission in 12% of patients and stable disease in 59% of patients. Overall population median overall survival (OS) was 11.2months (95% CI, 9.0-not reached). Commonly reported adverse events (AEs) (any grade) were stomatitis (25%), anaemia (15%) and asthenia (11%)., Conclusions: Results of this pooled analysis provide evidence of safety and effectiveness of second-line everolimus in routine clinical use and support everolimus as a standard of care for VEGF-refractory patients with mRCC., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)