In the context of real-world evidence (RWE), the terms “observational study” and “non-interventional study” are often used interchangeably to refer to studies that collect data outside the controlled environment of a clinical trial. However, it’s worth noting that some subtle differences can exist based on the specific context or regulatory guidelines. Here’s an overview:
[1] Observational Study: An observational study is a research design where researchers observe and collect data on participants without intervening or administering any specific treatment. Observational studies aim to analyze associations, correlations, or patterns in real-world settings. They can be prospective (following participants over time) or retrospective (analyzing existing data or medical records).
[2] Non-interventional Study: A non-interventional study is a study type (EU and US regulatory definition) that does not involve any healthcare or treatment interventions imposed by researchers. It is often used as an umbrella term for studies that collect data in real-world settings, without manipulating variables. Non-interventional studies are primarily focused on describing, analyzing, or assessing outcomes, exposure, or associations.
It’s important to note that regulatory guidelines and definitions may vary across different regions and agencies. For instance, the US FDA’s guidance on RWE refers to “real-world studies”, “observational Studies”, and “non-interventional (observational) studies”, while the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU/536/2014) uses the term “non-interventional studies.” However, in practice, the intent of these studies—collecting data without actively intervening—is often similar.
In the context of RWE, both observational studies and non-interventional studies typically leverage real-world data sources such as electronic health records, claims databases, registries, surveys, or patient-reported outcomes. They aim to generate evidence (real world evidence) on treatment outcomes, comparative effectiveness, safety profiles, and other healthcare-related factors.
Ultimately, the precise terminology used may vary, but the fundamental principle is that observational studies and non-interventional studies within the context of RWE both involve the collection and analysis of real-world data without actively imposing healthcare or treatment interventions on participants.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Ethical Imperatives (CIOMS 2023)
RWE 101 - Ethical Imperatives (CIOMS 2023) Informed decision making with patients typically relies on evidence from clinical trials that describe the likely benefits and toxicities. However, patients treated [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Ethical Imperatives
RWE 101 - Ethical Imperatives Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a product derived from analysis of real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Importance of Intent
RWE 101 - The Importance of Intent Real-world evidence (RWE) is the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a product derived from the analysis [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Inspections
RWE 101 - Inspections Real-World Evidence (RWE) can include data from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), insurance claims and billing activities, patient registries, patient-generated data, and data [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits
RWE 101 - Audits A quality assurance auditor in the context of a real-world evidence (RWE) study has several responsibilities, key among them ensuring that all facets of the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Compliance Maps
RWE 101 - Compliance Maps In the context of multi-country Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies, "Regulatory Compliance Maps" are essentially a detailed representation of the diverse regulatory requirements specific to [...]