Use of real-world evidence in meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness models

References

• Silverman SL. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med. 2009;122(2):114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blommestein HM, Franken MG, Uyl-de Groot CA. A practical guide for using registry data to inform decisions about the cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs: lessons learned from the PHAROS registry. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(6):551–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP Jr., Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10(5):326–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katkade VB, Sanders KN, Zou KH. Real world data: an opportunity to supplement existing evidence for the use of long-established medicines in health care decision making. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11:295–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell JD, McQueen RB, Briggs A. The "e" in cost-effectiveness analyses. A case study of omalizumab efficacy and effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analysis evidence. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(Suppl. 2):S105–S111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simunovic N, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl. 3):87–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartz A, Marsh JL. Methodologic issues in observational studies. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:33–42.
   Google Scholar
• Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al. Observational studies in systematic [corrected] reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1178–1186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zuuren EJ, Fedorowicz Z. Moose on the loose: checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(5):853–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makady A, Ham RT, de Boer A, et al. Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): a comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health. 2017;20(4):520–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briere JB, Bowrin K, Taieb V, et al. Meta-analyses using real-world data to generate clinical and epidemiological evidence: a systematic literature review of existing recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(12):2125–2130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowrin K, Briere JB, Levy P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses using real-world data: an overview of the literature. J Med Econ. 2019;22(6):545–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman CI, Briere JB, Fauchier L, et al. Meta-analysis of real-world evidence comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019;7(1):1574541.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levy P, Millier A, Briere JB, et al. Challenges in the use of real-world evidence for pharmacoeconomic modelling. Paper presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Europe; 2018 Nov 10–14; Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Chugh SS, Roth GA, Gillum RF, et al. Global burden of atrial fibrillation in developed and developing nations. Glob Heart. 2014;9(1):113–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate). London: European Medicines Agency; 2019; [cited 2020 May 25]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Summary_for_the_public/human/000829/WC500041060.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schaefer JK, McBane RD, Wysokinski WE. How to choose appropriate direct oral anticoagulant for patient with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(3):437–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):883–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981–992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093–2104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139–1151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. New York: University of York. NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998;316(7125):140–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller M, D'Addario M, Egger M, et al. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer NA, Bryant A, Velentgas P. The GRACE checklist: a validated assessment tool for high quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(10):1107–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med. 2006;11(2):35–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quigley JM, Thompson JC, Halfpenny NJ, et al. Critical appraisal of real world evidence – a review of recommended and commonly used tools. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. Commentary: adjusting for bias: a user's guide to performing plastic surgery on meta-analyses of observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):777–779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ, Onitilo AA. Methods for the bias adjustment of meta-analyses of published observational studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(4):653–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briere JB, Bowrin K, Coleman C, et al. Real-world clinical evidence on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban compared with vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(1):27–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions v5.1.0; 2011; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/
   Google Scholar
• Briere JB, Wu O, Bowrin K, et al. Impact of methodological choices on a meta-analysis of real-world evidence comparing non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(11):1867–1872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietri G, Masoura P. Market access and reimbursement: the increasing role of real-world evidence. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A450–A451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Goring SM, Lozano-Ortega G. Inclusion of real-world evidence in submission packages to health technology assessment bodies: what do current guidelines indicate? Value Health. 2016;19(3):A287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Edoxaban for preventing stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA355]. UK: NICE; 2015; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta355
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Apixaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA275]. UK: NICE; 2012; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta275/resources/apixaban-for-preventing-stroke-and-systemic-embolism-in-people-with-nonvalvular-atrial-fibrillation-pdf-82600614137797
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with atrial fibrillation. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA256]. UK: NICE; 2012; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta256
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA249]. UK: NICE; 2012; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta249/resources/dabigatran-etexilate-for-the-prevention-of-stroke-and-systemic-embolism-in-atrial-fibrillation-pdf-82600439457733
   Google Scholar
• Bayer Plc. Single technology appraisal (STA) of rivaroxaban (Xarelto®). London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011; [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta256/documents/atrial-fibrillation-stroke-prevention-rivaroxaban-bayer4
   Google Scholar
• Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Lagrenade I, et al. Assessing the risk of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Loire Valley Atrial Fibrillation project. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012;5(5):941–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman CI, Tangirala M, Evers T. Treatment persistence and discontinuation with rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the United States. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotte FE, Chaize G, Kachaner I, et al. Incidence and cost of stroke and hemorrhage in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in France. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23(2):e73–e83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blin P, Philippe F, Bouee S, et al. Outcomes following acute hospitalised myocardial infarction in France: an insurance claims database analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;219:387–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lip GYH, Pan X, Kamble S, et al. Real world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(Suppl. 1):1085.
   Google Scholar
• Fauchier L, Samson A, Chaize G, et al. Cause of death in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to French hospitals in 2012: a nationwide database study. Open Heart. 2015;2(1):e000290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pockett RD, McEwan P, Beckham C, et al. Health utility in patients following cardiovascular events. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kongnakorn T, Lanitis T, Annemans L, et al. Stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium: comparative cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin. Clin Drug Investig. 2015;35(2):109–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray AM, Bull L, et al. Quality of life after TIA and stroke: ten-year results of the Oxford Vascular Study. Neurology. 2013;81(18):1588–1595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanitis T, Cotte FE, Gaudin AF, et al. Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin, and aspirin. J Med Econ. 2014;17(8):587–598.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cotte FE, Chaize G, Gaudin AF, et al. Burden of stroke and other cardiovascular complications in patients with atrial fibrillation hospitalized in France. Europace. 2016;18(4):501–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreif N, Grieve R, Sadique MZ. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data: a critical appraisal tool and review of current practice. Health Econ. 2013;22(4):486–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts RD, Li IW. Use of checklists in reviews of health economic evaluations, 2010 to 2018. Value Health. 2019;22(3):377–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):723–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams ME, McCall NT, Gray DT, et al. Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Med Care. 1992;30(3):231–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristan JA, Soto J, Galende I. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies: utilization of a checklist. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27(9):1126–1133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos MT. The Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Value Health. 2003;6(5):584–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41(1):32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar