ALTHOUGH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS (RCTS) ARE the bedrock for establishing which interventions are efficacious, there is increasing recognition that they cannot address all needs, especially the need to determine, in a timely manner, the safety and effectiveness of different interventions used in the diverse array of patients and settings that make up a health care system. Interest has increased in the role of observational studies, and more specifically in registries and other electronic data sets, as a way to fill these critical gaps in evidence and as useful guides for helping to determine formulary placement. The recently released “highest priority challenge topics” from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pointedly reference registries more than 20 times. Yet little guidance is available to help patients, physicians, payers, researchers, and policy makers evaluate the quality of information derived from these nonexperimental sources. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality defines a patient registry for evaluating outcomes as “an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves a predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purpose(s).” Registries and other noninterventional studies are often referred to as real-world data to distinguish them from most clinical trials. These realworld studies are a heterogeneous mix ranging from prospective observational studies like registries to studies of large administrative and electronic medical record data sets collected for other purposes. As more attention is focused on using real-world data to build an evidence base, it is important to know how to evaluate the quality and usability of studies derived from these types of observations. Registries could be organized around conditions or exposures, such as a particular disease; a health care service (eg, procedure); or a product (drug or device) and can address questions ranging from treatment effectiveness and safety to the quality of care delivered. Registries vary in complexity from simply recording product use as a requirement for reimbursement to more systematic efforts to collect prospective data on many types of treatment, risk factors, and clinical events in a defined population. Follow-up could be retrospective, prospective, or a combination of both. The mode and duration of follow-up could range from days (eg, hospital admission registry) to decades (eg, orthopedic implant registry). How the denominator population is defined and enumerated depends on the research question. For example, to estimate the proportion of a population that has been vaccinated, the underlying population would need to be systematically sampled along with those who receive vaccines. In contrast, the safety and effectiveness of a new treatment could be studied by following typical patients who receive the new treatment to evaluate how their condition resolves and whether any untoward events occur that appear to be related to the treatment. Registries are being used to fill important gaps in evidence and contribute to understanding how trial results can be applied in practice. For example, observational data were used to compare coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The available trial evidence was derived mainly from patients with singleor 2-vessel coronary disease—and did not reflect other therapies in use at that time, such as minimally invasive surgery, off-pump surgery, and drug-eluting stents. Physicians and health insurers sought evidence to help guide therapeutic decisions, but there were no trial data for the clinically diverse range of patients commonly treated. Although it appeared that myocardial infarction and mortality were comparable for PCI and CABG among patients with similar levels of coronary disease, registry data showed a strong gradient of benefit of CABG by severity of disease. Data from registries are also used to support timely decisions by regulatory agencies about safety and about coverage (payment). Safety data from the acyclovir pregnancy registry were used to change the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pregnancy labeling category from category C (risk cannot be ruled out) to category B (no evidence of risk in humans). The FDA has also used observational data to expand labeled indications, such as broadening the age groups for intra-ocular lenses through review of registry data,
Read full abstract