RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?
JF European Respiratory Review
JO EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW
FD European Respiratory Society
SP 259
OP 265
DO 10.1183/16000617.0016-2016
VO 25
IS 141
A1 Tarricone, Rosanna
A1 Boscolo, Paola Roberta
A1 Armeni, Patrizio
YR 2016
UL http://err.ersjournals.com/content/25/141/259.abstract
AB The objective of this mini-review is to discuss the role of real-world studies as a source of clinical evidence when experimental studies, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are not available. Waiting for RCT evidence when the technology is diffusing could be anti-economical, inefficient from the policy perspective and methodologically questionable.We explain how real-world studies could provide relevant evidence to decision makers. Matching techniques are discussed as a viable solution for bias reduction.We describe a case study concerning a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data of a technology already in use: Mitraclip combined with medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. The CEA has encountered the scepticism of most reviewers, due not to the statistical methodology but to the fact that the study was observational and not experimental. Editors and reviewers converged in considering real-world economic evaluations premature in the absence of a RCT, even if in the meantime the technology had been implanted >30 000 times. We believe there is a need to acknowledge the importance of real-world studies, and engage the scientific community in the promotion and use of clinical evidence produced through observational studies.Real-world data are a valid complement and/or alternative to RCTs to support policy decisions on medical devices http://ow.ly/SHsZ300pfCB