Comparison of Methods of Clinical Trial Emulation Utilizing Data From the Comparison of AMD Treatment Trial (CATT) and the IRIS® Registry.

PURPOSE

We used exact matching and inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) using real-world data (RWD) from the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) to emulate the 2 pro re nata () treatment arms from the Comparison of AMD Treatment Trial (CATT) and to compare the outcomes of the RWD arms to the 2 monthly treatment arms from the clinical trial.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study utilizing deidentified electronic health record registry data and patient-level deidentified clinical trial data.

SUBJECTS

All treatment-naive patient eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab only for 1 year from either the CATT or the IRIS Registry.

METHODS

Patients were identified in the IRIS Registry between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. After all nonimaging-based inclusion and exclusion criteria from the CATT were applied, patient eyes receiving bevacizumab or ranibizumab only on a basis were identified as the eligible cohort. Exact matching and ISPW was applied based on age, gender, and baseline visual acuity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean change in visual acuity, in approximated ETDRS letters, between baseline and 1 year for the IRIS Registry prn treatment arms generated by exact matching and IPSW.

RESULTS

We identified 427 eyes treated with ranibizumab and 771 eyes treated with bevacizumab . Using exact matching, 98% (n = 281) of CATT patient eyes in the bevacizumab monthly treatment arm and 87% (n = 261) of CATT patient eyes in the ranibizumab monthly treatment arm were matched to a patient eye in the IRIS Registry. For the ranibizumab treatment arm, patient eyes generated using exact matching gained 1.9 letters and those generated using IPSW gained 2.8 letters (exact matching: 1.9 letters ± 14.0 vs. IPSW: 2.8 letters ± 15.0 letters,  = 0.43). For the bevacizumab treatment arm, patient eyes generated using exact matching gained 2.4 letters and those generated using IPSW gained 2.1 letters (exact matching: 2.4 letters ± 15.4 vs. IPSW: 2.1 letters ± 16.0 letters,  = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Both exact matching and IPSW produced similar results in emulating the treatment arms of the CATT using IRIS Registry data and patient-level clinical trial data. Similar to prior real-world studies, the clinical outcomes were significantly worse in the IRIS Registry treatment arms compared with the clinical trial.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.