Comparison of two assessments of real‐world data and real‐world evidence for regulatory decision‐making

• Published in: Clinical and translational science Vol. 17; no. 1; pp. e13702 - n/a
• Main Authors: Yuan, Lily, Rahman, Motiur, Concato, John
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.01.2024; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Brief Report; Brief Reports; Clinical trials; Decision making; Electronic health records; FDA approval; Literature reviews; Patients; Pharmacovigilance; Product safety; Purpura; Regulatory agencies
• ISSN: 1752-8054; 1752-8062
• DOI: 10.1111/cts.13702

Real‐world data (RWD) and real‐world evidence (RWE) are increasingly used to support regulatory decision making, but regulatory agencies and stakeholders may apply different definitions for RWD and use different criteria to determine when analysis of such data are considered RWE in decisions on drug approvals. To explore this issue, we reviewed two prominent publications that operationalized the definitions of RWD and RWE when describing the use of RWE in drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Both publications considered noninterventional (observational) studies, RWD as a comparator arm for a single‐arm trial, product‐related literature reviews, and RWD to support clinical trial implementation (e.g., to identify potential participants) as generating RWE. In contrast, inconsistencies were identified regarding types of data sources and study designs that were considered as not generating RWE. For example, a lack of agreement existed regarding whether RWE is generated when RWD describe therapeutic contexts or are used in phase I/II interventional trials, open‐label extension studies, or pharmacovigilance activities. These discrepancies highlight opportunities to develop a consistent understanding of the role of RWE in regulatory decision making for drug approvals among regulatory agencies and stakeholders.