The importance of collecting structured clinical information on multiple sclerosis

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the ‘gold standard’ in the generation of drug efficacy and safety evidence. However, enrolment criteria, timelines and atypical comparators of RCTs limit their relevance to standard clinical practice.DiscussionReal-world data (RWD) provide longitudinal information on the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of drugs, as well as their impact on resource use, medical costs, and pharmacoeconomic and patient-reported outcomes. This is particularly important in multiple sclerosis (MS), where economic treatment benefits of long-term disability reduction are a cornerstone of payer drug approvals – these are typically not examined in the RCT itself but modelled using real-world datasets. Importantly, surrogate markers used in RCTs to predict the prevention of long-term disability progression can only truly be assessed through RWD methodologies.SummaryWe discuss the differences between RCTs and RWD studies, describe how RWD complements the evidence base from RCTs in MS, summarize the different methods of RWD collection, and explain the importance of structuring data analysis to avoid bias. Guidance on performing and identifying high-quality real-world evidence studies is also provided.

[1]  T. Friede,et al.  Multiple sclerosis registries in Europe – results of a systematic survey , 2014, Multiple sclerosis.

[2]  D. Arnold,et al.  Treatment effect on brain atrophy correlates with treatment effect on disability in multiple sclerosis , 2014, Annals of neurology.

[3]  M Soledad Cepeda,et al.  Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  Ping Li,et al.  Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Raimar Kern,et al.  The PANGAEA study design – a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, long-term study on fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in daily practice , 2015, BMC Neurology.

[6]  M. Bonafede,et al.  Health care-resource utilization before and after natalizumab initiation in multiple sclerosis patients in the US , 2013, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[7]  J. Baskerville,et al.  The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 9: observations on the progressive phase of the disease. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Switch to natalizumab versus fingolimod in active relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis , 2015, Annals of neurology.

[9]  R. Willke,et al.  “Ten Commandments” for Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Research Using “Real-World Data” , 2011, Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP.

[10]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Fingolimod after natalizumab and the risk of short-term relapse , 2014, Neurology.

[11]  G. Capkun,et al.  Persistence with and adherence to fingolimod compared with other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis , 2014, Journal of medical economics.

[12]  L. Boulanger,et al.  Compliance to fingolimod and other disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis patients, a retrospective cohort study , 2013, BMC Neurology.

[13]  B. Hurwitz Analysis of current multiple sclerosis registries , 2011, Neurology.

[14]  L. Kappos,et al.  Efficacy and safety of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: interim observational programme results , 2014, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[15]  K. Edwards,et al.  Outcomes of switching directly to oral fingolimod from injectable therapies: Results of the randomized, open-label, multicenter, Evaluate Patient OutComes (EPOC) study in relapsing multiple sclerosis. , 2014, Multiple sclerosis and related disorders.

[16]  M. Bottai,et al.  Modest familial risks for multiple sclerosis: a registry-based study of the population of Sweden , 2014, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[17]  P. Austin An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[18]  B Stubinski,et al.  Scoring treatment response in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis , 2013, Multiple sclerosis.

[19]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Predictors of disability worsening in clinically isolated syndrome , 2015, Annals of clinical and translational neurology.

[20]  R. Hayward,et al.  Beyond the Randomized Clinical Trial the Role of Effectiveness Studies in Evaluating Cardiovascular Therapies the Achilles' Heel of Rcts Key Issues in Outcomes Research , 2022 .

[21]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and interferon beta formulations in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis , 2015, Multiple sclerosis.

[22]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: sequential enhanced MR imaging vs clinical findings in determining disease activity. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Rohit Bakshi,et al.  Central Nervous System Atrophy and Clinical Status in Multiple Sclerosis , 2004, Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging.

[24]  R. Hupperts,et al.  The STAR Study: a real-world, international, observational study of the safety and tolerability of, and adherence to, serum-free subcutaneous interferon β-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. , 2014, Clinical therapeutics.

[25]  J. L. Kelsey Cohort studies. , 1983, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.

[26]  K. Rajagopalan,et al.  Impact of natalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study , 2012, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[27]  L. Kappos,et al.  MSBase: an international, online registry and platform for collaborative outcomes research in multiple sclerosis , 2006, Multiple sclerosis.

[28]  L. Alfredsson,et al.  Comparative analysis of first-year fingolimod and natalizumab drug discontinuation among Swedish patients with multiple sclerosis , 2016, Multiple sclerosis.

[29]  Alexander Suhrbier,et al.  Multiple sclerosis documentation system (MSDS): moving from documentation to management of MS patients , 2013, Journal of Neural Transmission.

[30]  David H. Miller,et al.  Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials , 2009, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[31]  Olivier Gout,et al.  Treatment effect on brain atrophy correlates with treatment effect on disability in multiple sclerosis , 2014, Annals of neurology.

[32]  Massimo Filippi,et al.  Cortical lesions and atrophy associated with cognitive impairment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. , 2009, Archives of neurology.

[33]  J. Korn,et al.  Healthcare resource use and relapses with fingolimod versus natalizumab for treating multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.

[34]  Joshua C Denny,et al.  Automated extraction of clinical traits of multiple sclerosis in electronic medical records , 2013, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[35]  M Quarantelli,et al.  A voxel-based morphometry study of disease severity correlates in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis , 2010, Multiple sclerosis.

[36]  L. Garrison,et al.  Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[37]  T. Ziemssen,et al.  Multiple Sclerosis Therapy With Disease-Modifying Treatments in Germany: The PEARL (ProspEctive phArmacoeconomic cohoRt evaluation) Noninterventional Study Protocol , 2016, JMIR research protocols.

[38]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Comparison of switch to fingolimod or interferon beta/glatiramer acetate in active multiple sclerosis. , 2015, JAMA neurology.

[39]  C. Granger,et al.  Multiple sclerosis characteristics in A frican A merican patients in the New York State Multiple Sclerosis C onsortium , 2003, Multiple sclerosis.

[40]  Barrie J Hurwitz,et al.  Registry studies of long-term multiple sclerosis outcomes , 2011, Neurology.

[41]  Marco Battaglini,et al.  Relevance of hypointense brain MRI lesions for long-term worsening of clinical disability in relapsing multiple sclerosis , 2014, Multiple sclerosis.

[42]  C Confavreux,et al.  Relapses and progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[43]  N. Dreyer,et al.  The GRACE Checklist for Rating the Quality of Observational Studies of Comparative Effectiveness: A Tale of Hope and Caution , 2014, Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy.

[44]  Raimar Kern,et al.  Designing an Electronic Patient Management System for Multiple Sclerosis: Building a Next Generation Multiple Sclerosis Documentation System , 2016, Interactive journal of medical research.

[45]  L. Kappos,et al.  Comparative efficacy of switching to natalizumab in active multiple sclerosis , 2015, Annals of clinical and translational neurology.

[46]  J H Simon,et al.  Brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: what we know and would like to know , 2006, Multiple sclerosis.

[47]  T. Olsson,et al.  The 'Immunomodulation and Multiple Sclerosis Epidemiology' (IMSE) study : a Swedish nationwide pharmaco-epidemiological and genetic study focused on long-term safety and efficacy of natalizumab (Tysabri) , 2012 .

[48]  H. Möller Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages , 2011, Dialogues in clinical neuroscience.