Suissa Samy, Schneeweiss Sebastian, Feldman William B, Tesfaye Helen, Wang Shirley V
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and of Medicine, McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Am J Epidemiol. 2025 May 7;194(5):1152-1159. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwae319.
Observational studies are increasingly used to provide real-world evidence in regulatory decision-making. The RCT-DUPLICATE initiative conducted observational studies emulating 2 published randomized trials in patients with asthma and 3 in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For each trial, new-user cohorts were constructed from 2 US healthcare claims databases, comparing initiators of the study and comparator drugs, matched on propensity scores. Proportional hazards models were used to compare the treatments on study outcomes. The observational studies involved more subjects than the corresponding trials, with treatment arms well-matched on baseline characteristics. An asthma example involved emulation of the 26-week FDA-mandated D5896 trial. With 6494 asthma patients per arm, the hazard ratio (HR) of a serious asthma-related event with budesonide-formoterol vs budesonide was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.63-2.65) compared with 1.07 (95% CI, 0.70-1.65) in the trial. A COPD example is the emulation of the one-year IMPACT trial. With 4365 COPD patients per arm, the HR of a COPD exacerbation with triple therapy vs dual bronchodilators was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00-1.17) compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91) in the trial. We found mainly discordant results between observational analyses and their emulated randomized trials, likely from the forced discontinuation of treatments prior to randomization in the trials, not mimicable in the observational analyses. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.
观察性研究在监管决策中越来越多地被用于提供真实世界的证据。RCT-DUPLICATE计划开展了观察性研究,模拟了2项已发表的针对哮喘患者的随机试验以及3项针对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的随机试验。对于每项试验,从2个美国医疗保健索赔数据库中构建新用户队列,比较研究药物和对照药物的起始使用者,并根据倾向得分进行匹配。使用比例风险模型比较治疗对研究结果的影响。观察性研究纳入的受试者比相应试验更多,各治疗组在基线特征上匹配良好。一个哮喘方面的例子是对FDA规定的为期26周的D5896试验的模拟。每组有6494例哮喘患者,与试验中布地奈德-福莫特罗与布地奈德相比,严重哮喘相关事件的风险比(HR)为1.29(95%CI,0.63 - 2.65),而试验中的HR为1.07(95%CI,0.70 - 1.65)。一个COPD方面的例子是对为期一年的IMPACT试验的模拟。每组有4365例COPD患者,三联疗法与双联支气管扩张剂相比,COPD急性加重的HR为1.08(95%CI,1.00 - 1.17),而试验中的HR为0.84(95%CI,0.78 - 0.91)。我们发现观察性分析与其模拟的随机试验之间的结果主要不一致,这可能是由于试验中在随机分组前强制停药,而观察性分析无法模拟这一点。本文是药物流行病学特刊的一部分。