Suvarna Viraj Ramesh
Boehringer Ingelheim India Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Perspect Clin Res. 2018 Apr-Jun;9(2):61-63. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_36_18.
Real world evidence is important as it complements data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Both have limitations in design, interpretation, and extrapolatability. It is imperative one designs real world studies in the right way, else it can be misleading. An RCT is always considered higher in the evidence ladder and when there is discordance between a real world study and an RCT, it is the latter which is always considered pristine because of the way it is conducted, e.g., randomization, prospective, double-blind, etc. A real world study can also be done prospectively, and propensity score matching can be used to construct comparable cohorts but may not be able to account for certain biases or confounding factors the way an RCT can do. Nevertheless, comparative effectiveness research in the real world is being resorted to, especially for efficiency studies or pharmacoeconomic analyses, and with the advent of machine learning, the electronic healthcare database mining can result in algorithms that help doctors identify clinical characteristics that correlate with optimal response of a patient to a drug/regimen, thus helping him/her select the right patient for the right drug.
真实世界证据很重要,因为它补充了随机对照试验(RCT)的数据。两者在设计、解释和外推性方面都有局限性。必须以正确的方式设计真实世界研究,否则可能会产生误导。RCT在证据等级中总是被认为更高,当真实世界研究与RCT之间存在不一致时,由于其实施方式(例如随机化、前瞻性、双盲等),后者总是被认为是原始的。真实世界研究也可以前瞻性地进行,倾向得分匹配可用于构建可比队列,但可能无法像RCT那样解释某些偏差或混杂因素。尽管如此,尤其是在效率研究或药物经济学分析中,人们正在采用真实世界中的比较有效性研究,并且随着机器学习的出现,电子医疗数据库挖掘可以产生算法,帮助医生识别与患者对药物/治疗方案的最佳反应相关的临床特征,从而帮助他/她为合适的药物选择合适的患者。