Open access

Methodology

2 August 2017

PHEDRA: using real-world data to analyze treatment patterns and ibrutinib effectiveness in hematological malignancies

Authors: Jamie Garside [email protected], Nollaig Healy, Hervé Besson, Ruben Hermans, Finlay MacDougall, Damien Lestelle, Joris Diels, and Wafae IraqiAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 7, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2017-0046

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: PHEDRA (Platform for Haematology in EMEA: Data for Real World Analysis) is a unique, noninterventional project based on secondary data collection from real-world (RW) patient-level (health record) databases to understand treatment patterns in hematological malignancies. It compares ibrutinib's effectiveness with alternative treatments using RW data (RWD) and randomized clinical trials data. Materials & methods: RWD are cleaned, validated, harmonized into a Common Data Model, and analyzed statistically alongside randomized clinical trial data. Treatment outcomes include overall and progression-free survival. Results: To date, RWD (four databases) are available for 2840 patients in three indications, collected between 1990 and 2017. Conclusion: PHEDRA is an innovative approach to generate evidence to inform optimal treatment decisions in RW settings.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Hahn OM, Schilsky RL. Randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(34), 4194–4201 (2012).

• Review of the role of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in comparative effectiveness research to improve the translation gap between clinical research and real-world (RW) clinical practice in oncology.

2.

Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 10(5), 326–335 (2007).

3.

Stanley K. Design of randomized controlled trials. Circulation 115(9), 1164–1169 (2007).

4.

Moen F, Svensson J, Steen Carlsson K. Assessing the value of cancer treatments from real-world data – Issues, empirical examples and lessons learnt. J. Cancer Policy 11, 32–37 (2017).

5.

Mahajan R. Real-world data: additional source for making clinical decisions. Int. J. Appl. Basic Med. Res. 5(2), 82 (2015).

• Summarizes the importance of RW data (RWD) to support RCT data in evaluating treatment patterns and health outcomes of different treatments.

6.

Imbruvica. Summary of product characteristics EU. Janssen Pharmaceutica, High Wycombe, UK (2017).

7.

Imbruvica. Prescribing information US. Janssen Biotech, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA (2017).

8.

Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(25), 2425–2437 (2015).

• This RCT (RESONATE-2™) demonstrates that ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), assessed by progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate and improvement in hematologic variables.

9.

Byrd JC, Brown JR, O'Brien S et al. Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab in previously treated chronic lymphoid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 371(3), 213–223 (2014).

• This RCT (RESONATE™) in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL shows that ibrutinib compared with ofatumumab significantly improved PFS, OS and response rate.

10.

Chanan-Khan A, Cramer P, Demirkan F et al. Ibrutinib combined with bendamustine and rituximab compared with placebo, bendamustine, and rituximab for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (HELIOS): a randomised, double-blind, Phase III study. Lancet Oncol. 17(2), 200–211 (2016).

11.

Schilsky RL. Finding the evidence in real-world evidence: moving from data to information to knowledge. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 224(1), 1–7 (2017).

•• Highlights the advantages and limitations inherent to RWD, and the importance of capturing the longitudinal experience of each cancer patient to guide clinical care.

12.

Robinson S, Brooks R, Kotiadis K, Van Der Zee DJ. Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA (2010).

13.

Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11(5), 550–560 (2000).

14.

Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 84(408), 1074 (1989).

15.

Hernan MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183(8), 758–764 (2016).

• Outlines a framework for comparative effectiveness data, which helps to avoid common methodologic pitfalls, and proposes including the same patient multiple times for increased statistical efficiency.

16.

Byrd JC, Hillmen P, O'Brien SM et al. Long-term efficacy and safety with ibrutinib (ibr) in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): up to four years follow-up of the RESONATE study. Presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, USA, 2–6 June 2017.

17.

Doubek M, Obrtlíková P, Špaček M et al. Ibrutinib single agent vs standard of care for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): an adjusted comparison of RESONATE™ with the CLLEAR database. Presented at: European Hematology Association 21st Annual Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark, 9–12 June 2016.

•• Investigation of clinical outcomes suggesting that ibrutinib administered to patients with relapsed or refractory CLL in RESONATE™ was more effective than physician's choice among individuals from an RW cohort of CLLEAR, with results consistent regardless of prior standard-of-care regimens.

18.

Salles G, Baseggio L, Bachy E et al. Single-agent ibrutinib vs standard of care for patients with treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory CLL: an adjusted comparison of RESONATE-2™ and RESONATE™ with the French Lyon-Sud database. Presented at: American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA, USA, 3–6 December 2016.

•• First adjusted (indirect) comparison of ibrutinib clinical trial data (RESONATE-2™ and RESONATE™ trials) with RW physician's choice-treated patients with treatment-naive or refractory CLL showing ibrutinib significantly improved both PFS and OS versus commonly used regimens.

19.

Doubek M, Bachy E, Špaček M et al. Single-agent ibrutinib versus real-world treatment for patients with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): an adjusted comparison of RESONATE-2™ with the CLLEAR and Lyon-Sud databases. Presented at: European Hematology Association 22nd Annual Congress. Madrid, Spain, 22–25 June 2017.

|