International Society For Pharmacoepidemiology Research Articles

Current issues related to the off-label use of drugs and their potential solutions

Relevance. Off-label use of medications is a common practice in clinical settings. To address the growing interest in this issue, the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) has developed new general guidelines for off-label prescribing in clinical practice that emphasize the importance of evidence-based medicine and promote transparent communication between healthcare professionals and patients.Objective. The aim of this work was to analyze and present key trends for optimizing off-label prescribing decisions based on the ISPE recommendations (2023).Results. The report highlights five main recommendations: seeking strong scientific evidence, including the use of real-world data; using expert knowledge to evaluate and summarize evidence; developing recommendations with rigorous consistency; aligning the use of off-label medications with research; and strengthening collaboration among regulators, researchers, clinicians, and the pharmaceutical industry.Conclusions. A comprehensive approach is required to address the problem of off-label use of medicines. Implementation of these initiatives will reduce the risks associated with off-label use, generate sustainable scientific evidence, and improve the quality of patient care.

Updated core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology to inform contemporary curricula and training for academia, government, and industry.

The first paper to specify the core content of pharmacoepidemiology as a profession was published by an ISPE (International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology) workgroup in 2012 (Jones JK et al. PDS 2012; 21[7]:677-689). Due to the broader and evolving scope of pharmacoepidemiology, ISPE considers it important to proactively identify, update and expand the list of core competencies to inform curricula of education programs; thus, better positioning pharmacoepidemiologists across academic, government (including regulatory), and industry positions. The aim of this project was to update the list of core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology. To ensure applicability of findings to multiple areas, a working group was established consisting of ISPE members with positions in academia, industry, government, and other settings. All competencies outlined by Jones et al. were extracted from the initial manuscript and presented to the working group for review. Expert-based judgments were collated and used to identify consensus. It was noted that some competencies could contribute to multiple groups and could be directly or indirectly related to a group. Five core domains were proposed: (1) Epidemiology, (2) Clinical Pharmacology, (3) Regulatory Science, (4) Statistics and data science, and (5) Communication and other professional skills. In total, 55 individual competencies were proposed, of which 25 were new competencies. No competencies from the original work were dropped but aggregation or amendments were made where considered necessary. While many core competencies in pharmacoepidemiology have remained the same over the past 10 years, there have also been several updates to reflect new and emerging concepts in the field.

Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the urgency for updated evidence to inform public health and clinical care placed systematic literature reviews (SLRs) at the cornerstone of research. We aimed to summarize evidence on prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes through published SLRs and to critically assess quality elements in the findings' interpretation. An umbrella review was conducted via electronic databases from January 2020 to April 2022. All SLRs (and meta-analyses) in English were considered. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess SLR quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD4202232576). Out of 4,564 publications, 171 SLRs were included of which 3 were umbrella reviews. Our primary analysis included 35 SLRs published in 2022, which incorporated studies since the beginning of the pandemic. Consistent findings showed that, for adults, older age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were more strongly predictive of risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19. Male sex was associated with higher risk of short-term adverse outcomes, but female sex was associated with higher risk of long COVID. For children, socioeconomic determinants that may unravel COVID-19 disparities were rarely reported. This review highlights key prognostic factors of COVID-19, which can help clinicians and health officers identify high-risk groups for optimal care. Findings can also help optimize confounding adjustment and patient phenotyping in comparative effectiveness research. A living SLR approach may facilitate dissemination of new findings. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

High-dimensional propensity scores for empirical covariate selection in secondary database studies: Planning, implementation, and reporting.

Real-world evidence used for regulatory, payer, and clinical decision-making requires principled epidemiology in design and analysis, applying methods to minimize confounding given the lack of randomization. One technique to deal with potential confounding is propensity score (PS) analysis, which allows for the adjustment for measured preexposure covariates. Since its first publication in 2009, the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) method has emerged as an approach that extends traditional PS covariate selection to include large numbers of covariates that may reduce confounding bias in the analysis of healthcare databases. hdPS is an automated, data-driven analytic approach for covariate selection that empirically identifies preexposure variables and proxies to include in the PS model. This article provides an overview of the hdPS approach and recommendations on the planning, implementation, and reporting of hdPS used for causal treatment-effect estimations in longitudinal healthcare databases. We supply a checklist with key considerations as a supportive decision tool to aid investigators in the implementation and transparent reporting of hdPS techniques, and to aid decision-makers unfamiliar with hdPS in the understanding and interpretation of studies employing this approach. This article is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force.

Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The overarching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of Hypothesis Evaluating Real-World Evidence Studies on Treatment Effects: A Good Practices Report of a Joint ISPE/ISPOR Task Force

ObjectivesAmbiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. MethodsThe International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The over-arching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. Strategies to Disseminate and Facilitate UseRecognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. ConclusionThe HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

ISPE-Endorsed Guidance in Using Electronic Health Records for Comparative Effectiveness Research in COVID-19: Opportunities and Trade-Offs.

As the scientific research community along with healthcare professionals and decision makers around the world fight tirelessly against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the need for comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive and therapeutic interventions for COVID‐19 is immense. Randomized controlled trials markedly under‐represent the frail and complex patients seen in routine care, and they do not typically have data on long‐term treatment effects. The increasing availability of electronic health records (EHRs) for clinical research offers the opportunity to generate timely real‐world evidence reflective of routine care for optimal management of COVID‐19. However, there are many potential threats to the validity of CER based on EHR data that are not originally generated for research purposes. To ensure unbiased and robust results, we need high‐quality healthcare databases, rigorous study designs, and proper implementation of appropriate statistical methods. We aimed to describe opportunities and challenges in EHR‐based CER for COVID‐19‐related questions and to introduce best practices in pharmacoepidemiology to minimize potential biases. We structured our discussion into the following topics: (1) study population identification based on exposure status; (2) ascertainment of outcomes; (3) common biases and potential solutions; and (iv) data operational challenges specific to COVID‐19 CER using EHRs. We provide structured guidance for the proper conduct and appraisal of drug and vaccine effectiveness and safety research using EHR data for the pandemic. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).

Control yourself: ISPE-endorsed guidance in the application of self-controlled study designs in pharmacoepidemiology.

PurposeConsensus is needed on conceptual foundations, terminology and relationships among the various self‐controlled “trigger” study designs that control for time‐invariant confounding factors and target the association between transient exposures (potential triggers) and abrupt outcomes. The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) funded a working group of ISPE members to develop guidance material for the application and reporting of self‐controlled study designs, similar to Standards of Reporting Observational Epidemiology (STROBE). This first paper focuses on navigation between the types of self‐controlled designs to permit a foundational understanding with guiding principles.MethodsWe leveraged a systematic review of applications of these designs, that we term Self‐controlled Crossover Observational PharmacoEpidemiologic (SCOPE) studies. Starting from first principles and using case examples, we reviewed outcome‐anchored (case‐crossover [CCO], case‐time control [CTC], case‐case‐time control [CCTC]) and exposure‐anchored (self‐controlled case‐series [SCCS]) study designs.ResultsKey methodological features related to exposure, outcome and time‐related concerns were clarified, and a common language and worksheet to facilitate the design of SCOPE studies is introduced.ConclusionsConsensus on conceptual foundations, terminology and relationships among SCOPE designs will facilitate understanding and critical appraisal of published studies, as well as help in the design, analysis and review of new SCOPE studies. This manuscript is endorsed by ISPE.

Real-world evidence to support regulatory decision making: New or expanded medical product indications.

There is increasing interest in utilizing real-world data (RWD) to produce real-world evidence (RWE) on the benefits and risks of medical products that could support regulatory approval decisions. The field of pharmacoepidemiology has a long history of focusing on data and evidence that would now be termed "real-world," including evidence from healthcare claims, registries, and electronic health records. However, several emerging trends over the past decade are converging to support the use of these and other RWD sources for approval decisions, and there are several recent examples and ongoing research that demonstrate how RWE may be used to support regulatory approval of new or expanded indications. The goal of this article is to review the current landscape and future directions of the use of RWE in this context. This manuscript is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table2.

Real-world evidence to support regulatory decision-making for medicines: Considerations for external control arms.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in producing clinical evidence of efficacy and safety of medical interventions. More recently, a new paradigm is emerging—specifically within the context of preauthorization regulatory decision‐making—for some novel uses of real‐world evidence (RWE) from a variety of real‐world data (RWD) sources to answer certain clinical questions. Traditionally reserved for rare diseases and other special circumstances, external controls (eg, historical controls) are recognized as a possible type of control arm for single‐arm trials. However, creating and analyzing an external control arm using RWD can be challenging since design and analytics may not fully control for all systematic differences (biases). Nonetheless, certain biases can be attenuated using appropriate design and analytical approaches. The main objective of this paper is to improve the scientific rigor in the generation of external control arms using RWD. Here we (a) discuss the rationale and regulatory circumstances appropriate for external control arms, (b) define different types of external control arms, and (c) describe study design elements and approaches to mitigate certain biases in external control arms. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE).

The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology's Comments on the Core Recommendations in the Summary of the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) - EMA Joint Big Data Task Force.

The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology's Comments on the Core Recommendations in the Summary of the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) - EMA Joint Big Data Task Force.

Challenges in Post-marketing Studies of Biological Drugs in the Era of Biosimilars: A Report of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome, Italy.

Several controversial issues related to challenges in the post-marketing studies of biological drugs, including biosimilars, were discussed at the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome (Italy) in April. In recent years, the marketing of biosimilars has been growing, thus offering opportunities for wider access by patients to high-cost biological drugs as well as ensuring the economic sustainability of national healthcare systems. Through the comparability exercise required for marketing approval, the similarity of biosimilars to the reference products in terms of efficacy, safety and quality has to be demonstrated in pre-marketing studies. In Europe, the 15years of experience of marketing of biosimilars has allowed the accumulation of a significant amount of scientific evidence confirming the comparability of the benefit-risk profile of biosimilars and originators. However, some aspects remain to be addressed both from a scientific and regulatory perspective, such as interchangeability and the automatic substitution of originators and biosimilars. The (long-term) monitoring of all biological drugs, including biosimilars, in real-world settings is warranted, with the ultimate goal of integrating pre- and post-marketing evidence relating to the aforementioned open questions. This conference report describes priorities, data sources and methodological strategies for the post-marketing surveillance of biological drugs in the era of biosimilars.

Real-World Evidence: What It Is and What It Can Tell Us According to the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Special Interest Group (SIG).

On December 8, 2016, the New England Journal of Medicine published a sounding board on Real World Evidence (RWE)1 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) leadership. While the value of RWE based on nonrandomized observational studies was appreciated, such as for hypothesis generating, safety, and measuring quality in healthcare delivery, the authors expressed concerns on the quality of data sources and the ability of methodologies to control for confounding. In response, we offer a few considerations regarding these concerns.

Strengthening standards, transparency, and collaboration to support medicine evaluation: Ten years of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP).

Strengthening standards, transparency, and collaboration to support medicine evaluation: Ten years of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP).

Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making.

Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations. The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Occurrence of Multiple Sclerosis After Drug Exposure: Insights From Evidence Mapping.

The role of drugs in the occurrence of multiple sclerosis (MS) is perceived to be insufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to map and assess the evidence on MS occurrence after drug exposure, in order to identify possible signals of causal association. A search strategy was performed in MEDLINE and Embase as of July 2016; references consistent with the aim of the study were analysed to extract relevant measures of causal association between drugs and MS. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and appropriate guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) were used to assess the quality of included studies. After screening 832 articles, 58 were selected (of which 14 were found by checking the reference lists of reviews): 30 case reports and case series, 24 longitudinal studies and four randomized controlled trials. Seven longitudinal studies had good (at least 7 out of 9) quality scores, whereas case reports/case series presented several limitations. Half of included articles focused on immunomodulatory drugs (etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab), especially in case reports/series, suggesting an association with MS occurrence. Contraceptives and antibacterials were investigated in some population-based studies, without definite results. A heterogeneous pharmacological profile of identified classes emerged. Low strength of evidence and conflicting results highlighted the difficulties in addressing the possible contribution of drugs in MS occurrence. Methodological advances are needed, especially to control the confounding role of underlying disease for specific drug classes.

Importance of feasibility assessments before implementing non-interventional pharmacoepidemiologic studies of vaccines: lessons learned and recommendations for future studies.

PurposeInvestigational and marketed vaccines are increasingly evaluated, and manufacturers are required to put in place mechanisms to monitor long‐term benefit–risk profiles. However, generating such evidence in real‐world settings remains challenging, especially when rare adverse events are assessed. Planning of an appropriate study design is key to conducting a valid study. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how feasibility assessments support the generation of robust pharmacoepidemiological data.MethodsFollowing an initiative launched by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology in May 2014, a working group including members of the private and public sectors, was formed to assess the value of conducting feasibility assessments as a necessary step before embarking on larger‐scale post‐licensure studies. Based on five real‐life examples of feasibility assessments, lessons learned and recommendations were issued by the working group to support scientific reasoning and decision making when designing pharmacoepidemiologic vaccine studies.ResultsThe working group developed a toolbox to provide a pragmatic approach to conducting feasibility assessments. The toolbox contains two main components: the scientific feasibility and the operational feasibility. Both components comprise a series of specific questions aimed at overcoming methodological and operational challenges.ConclusionsA feasibility assessment should be formalized as a necessary step prior to the actual start of any pharmacoepidemiologic study. It should remain a technical evaluation and not a hypothesis testing. The feasibility assessment report may facilitate communication with regulatory agencies toward improving the quality of study protocols and supporting the endorsement of study objectives and methods addressing regulatory commitments. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) statement on American Society of Clinical Oncology's new policy for relationships with companies

International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) statement on American Society of Clinical Oncology's new policy for relationships with companies