Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions.

Studies that generate real-world evidence on the effects of medical products through analysis of digital data collected in clinical practice provide key insights for regulators, payers, and other healthcare decision-makers. Ensuring reproducibility of such findings is fundamental to effective evidence-based decision-making. We reproduce results for 150 studies published in peer-reviewed journals using the same healthcare databases as original investigators and evaluate the completeness of reporting for 250. Original and reproduction effect sizes were positively correlated (Pearson's correlation = 0.85), a strong relationship with some room for improvement. The median and interquartile range for the relative magnitude of effect (e.g., hazard ratiooriginal/hazard ratioreproduction) is 1.0 [0.9, 1.1], range [0.3, 2.1]. While the majority of results are closely reproduced, a subset are not. The latter can be explained by incomplete reporting and updated data. Greater methodological transparency aligned with new guidance may further improve reproducibility and validity assessment, thus facilitating evidence-based decision-making. Study registration number: EUPAS19636

Reproducible Evidence: Practices to Enhance and Achieve Transparency (REPEAT)

Studies that generate real-world evidence (RWE) through analysis of routinely collected healthcare data provide key insights for regulators, payers, and other healthcare decision-makers. In this project, we evaluated clarity of methodology reporting for 250 RWE studies and attempted to reproduce 150 studies using the same data sources and methods reported by the original investigators

Prescribing Trends of Oral Anticoagulants in US Patients With Cirrhosis and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Background Many patients with cirrhosis have concurrent nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Data are lacking regarding recent oral anticoagulant (OAC) usage trends among US patients with cirrhosis and NVAF. Methods and Results Using MarketScan claims data (2012–2019), we identified patients with cirrhosis and NVAF eligible for OACs (CHA2DS2‐VASc score ≥2 [men] or ≥3 [women]). We calculated the yearly proportion of patients prescribed a direct OAC (DOAC), warfarin, or no OAC. We stratified by high‐risk features (decompensated cirrhosis, thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy, chronic kidney disease, or end‐stage renal disease). Among 32 487 patients (mean age=71.6 years, 38.5% women, 15.1% with decompensated cirrhosis, mean CHA2DS2‐VASc=4.2), 44.6% used OACs within 180 days of NVAF diagnosis, including DOACs (20.2%) or warfarin (24.4%). Compared with OAC nonusers, OAC users were less likely to have decompensated cirrhosis (18.6% versus 10.7%), thrombocytopenia (19.5% versus 12.5%), or chronic kidney disease/end‐stage renal disease (15.5% versus 14.0%). Between 2012 and 2019, warfarin use decreased by 21.0% (32.0% to 11.0%), whereas DOAC use increased by 30.6% (7.4% to 38.0%), and among all DOACs between 2012 and 2019, apixaban was the most commonly prescribed (46.1%). Warfarin use decreased and DOAC use increased in all subgroups, including in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy, chronic kidney disease/end‐stage renal disease, and across CHA2DS2‐VASc categories. Among OAC users (2012–2019), DOAC use increased by 58.9% (18.7% to 77.6%). Among DOAC users, the greatest proportional increase was with apixaban (61.2%; P55% of patients remain untreated, underscoring the need for clearer treatment guidance

Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions

Studies that generate real-world evidence on the effects of medical products through analysis of digital data collected in clinical practice provide key insights for regulators, payers, and other healthcare decision-makers. Ensuring reproducibility of such findings is fundamental to effective evidence-based decision-making. We reproduce results for 150 studies published in peer-reviewed journals using the same healthcare databases as original investigators and evaluate the completeness of reporting for 250. Original and reproduction effect sizes were positively correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.85), a strong relationship with some room for improvement. The median and interquartile range for the relative magnitude of effect (e.g., hazard ratiooriginal/hazard ratioreproduction) is 1.0 [0.9, 1.1], range [0.3, 2.1]. While the majority of results are closely reproduced, a subset are not. The latter can be explained by incomplete reporting and updated data. Greater methodological transparency aligned with new guidance may further improve reproducibility and validity assessment, thus facilitating evidence-based decision-making. Study registration number: EUPAS19636

Reproducible Evidence: Practices to Enhance and Achieve Transparency (REPEAT)

Studies that generate real-world evidence (RWE) through analysis of routinely collected healthcare data provide key insights for regulators, payers, and other healthcare decision-makers. In this project, we evaluated clarity of methodology reporting for 250 RWE studies and attempted to reproduce 150 studies using the same data sources and methods reported by the original investigators