Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Most randomized controlled trials are unable to generate information about a product’s real-world effectiveness. Therefore, payers use real-world evidence (RWE) generated in observational studies to make decisions regarding formulary inclusion and coverage. While some payers generate their own RWE, most cautiously rely on RWE produced by manufacturers who have a strong financial interest in obtaining coverage for their products. We propose a process by which an independent body would certify observational studies as generating valid and unbiased estimates of the effectiveness of the intervention under consideration. This proposed process includes (a) establishing transparent criteria for assessment, (b) implementing a process for receipt and review of observational study protocols from interested parties, (c) reviewing the submitted protocol and requesting any necessary revisions, (d) reviewing the study results, (e) assigning a certification status to the submitted evidence, and (f) communicating the certification status to all who seek to use this evidence for decision making. Accrediting organizations such as the National Center for Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission have comparable goals of providing assurance about quality to those who look to their accreditation results. Although we recognize potential barriers, including a slowing of evidence generation and costs, we anticipate that processes can be streamlined, such as when familiar methods or familiar datasets are used. The financial backing for such activities remains uncertain, as does identification of organizations that might serve this certification function. We suggest that the rigor and transparency that will be required with such a process, and the unassailable evidence that it will produce, will be valuable to decision makers. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by IMS Health, which fully participated in planning the symposium and contributing to the manuscript. Alexander is chair of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee, serves as a paid consultant to IMS Health, and serves on an IMS Health scientific advisory board. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. Kessler is an employee of IMS Health, and Kallich and Garrison have served as paid consultants to IMS Health. Iqbal is an employee of AstraZeneca. Article concept was created by Garrison, Iqbal, and Kessler, with assistance from Kallich, Alexander, and Segal. The manuscript was primarily written by Segal, along with Oppenheim, and revised by Kallich, Segal, Alexander, and Garrison.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Segal et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: