var _paq = window._paq = window._paq || []; /* tracker methods like "setCustomDimension" should be called before "trackPageView" */ _paq.push(['trackPageView']); _paq.push(['enableLinkTracking']); (function() { var u="https://rwrregs.matomo.cloud/"; _paq.push(['setTrackerUrl', u+'matomo.php']); _paq.push(['setSiteId', '1']); var d=document, g=d.createElement('script'), s=d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; g.async=true; g.data-privacy-src='//cdn.matomo.cloud/rwrregs.matomo.cloud/matomo.js'; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g,s); })();

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional?

RWE 101 – Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional?

Non-interventional studies (NIS) are designed to observe and analyze data from real-world clinical settings without intervening or manipulating any variables. These studies play a crucial role in generating real-world evidence (RWE) and are important for understanding the effectiveness, safety, and outcomes associated with various healthcare interventions. Here are a few reasons why NIS should not be promotional:

1. Scientific integrity: The primary purpose of NIS is to gather unbiased and objective data to answer research questions or explore hypotheses. If these studies are conducted with a promotional intent, it can compromise the scientific integrity of the research. The results may be influenced or biased, leading to misleading interpretations and potentially affecting patient care.

2. Patient safety: NIS involve collecting data from patients in routine clinical practice. If these studies are conducted with a promotional motive, there is a risk of prioritizing the promotion of a product over ensuring patient safety. Patient well-being should always be the foremost concern in research, and any attempt to manipulate or skew the data for promotional purposes undermines this ethical principle.

3. Transparency and trust: NIS should be conducted with transparency and should provide reliable and unbiased evidence. When these studies are used as promotional tools, it can erode trust in the research process and industry. Maintaining public trust is crucial for the advancement of healthcare and the ethical conduct of research.

4. Conflicts of interest: If non-interventional studies are conducted for promotional purposes, it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Researchers or organizations conducting the study may have financial or other vested interests in promoting a particular product. Such conflicts can compromise the objectivity and independence of the research and may lead to biased reporting and selective publication of results.

5. Regulatory considerations: Regulatory authorities often require non-interventional studies to provide robust and unbiased data to inform decision-making about the safety and effectiveness of medical products. If these studies are promotional in nature, it can undermine the credibility of the regulatory process and lead to inappropriate approvals or recommendations based on biased evidence.

To ensure the ethical conduct of NIS, it is essential to separate research activities from promotional activities. Clear guidelines and regulations are in place to prevent the misuse of research studies for promotional purposes and to maintain the integrity and scientific rigor of non-interventional research. The primary focus should be on generating reliable evidence, improving patient care, and advancing scientific knowledge in an unbiased and ethical manner.

Share this story...

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional?2023-08-07T14:15:07+00:00

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Seeding Studies

RWE 101 – Seeding Studies

Seeding studies, in the context of real-world evidence (RWE), refer to studies that were conducted by pharmaceutical or medical device companies after a product’s approval or market introduction. These studies aimed to promote/ increase the market presence of the approved drug. Regulators like the FDA and EMA view seeding studies as unethical for several reasons.

Link: https://lnkd.in/e9vP4KxA

1.  Misleading intent: Seeding studies were primarily conducted to influence prescribing habits, promote a specific product, and create a favourable impression among healthcare providers. This promotional intent conflicts with the primary objective of research, which should be to generate unbiased and reliable evidence.

2.  Methodological flaws: Seeding studies often lacked rigorous scientific methodology. Some were observational in nature and lacked control groups or blinding, making it difficult to draw valid conclusions about product safety and efficacy. The data collected was of poor quality, limiting its utility for meaningful analysis and decision-making.

3. Transparency and bias: Seeding studies were sponsored by the manufacturers of the products being studied. This created potential conflicts of interest and raised concerns about transparency and data integrity. The financial relationships between study sponsors and participating healthcare professionals potentially biased the study results and compromised the independence and objectivity of the research.

4. Publication bias: Seeding studies were susceptible to publication bias, where positive or favourable results were more likely to be published, while negative or unfavourable findings were suppressed or unreported. This selective reporting distorted the overall evidence base and misled healthcare providers and regulators in their decision-making.

5. Ethical considerations: Seeding studies raised ethical concerns regarding patient safety and informed consent. Participants were not adequately informed about the purpose, risks, and benefits of these studies.

Regulatory bodies, including the FDA and EMA, strive to protect patient welfare and ensure the integrity of the research process. They require studies to be conducted with scientific rigor, unbiased intent, and adherence to ethical principles. In the EU, it is a legal requirement that non-interventional studies are not promotional (Article 107m(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC).

It is important for researchers, industry sponsors, and regulators to maintain transparency, adhere to ethical guidelines, and prioritize patient welfare in the pursuit of real-world evidence. By doing so, the integrity of RWE can be preserved, and reliable evidence can guide healthcare decisions and promote the well-being of patients.

Share this story...

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Seeding Studies2023-08-07T14:09:15+00:00
Go to Top