Utility of real-world evidence in biosimilar development

References

• Amusa, L., D. North, and T. Zewotir. 2022 Jul 1. A tailored use of the mahalanobis distance matching for causal effects estimation: A simulation study. Scientific African. 16:e01155. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01155.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. 2009, Feb. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: Results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal 51(1):171–84. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. 2014. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time‐to‐event outcomes: Reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Statistics in Medicine 33(7): 1242–58. doi:10.1002/sim.5984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C., and E. A. Stuart. 2015. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 34(28):3661–79. doi:10.1002/sim.6607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankenberger, B., S. Gehlhausen Anderson, and E. Lichtenberger. 2021, Dec. Improving institutional evaluation methods: Comparing three evaluations using PSM, exact and coarsened exact matching. Research in Higher Education 62(8):1248–75. doi:10.1007/s11162-021-09632-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, S. C. 2021. Innovative methods for rare disease drug development. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC. doi:10.1201/9781003049364.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. doi:10.4324/9780203771587.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. 2023. Use of real-world evidence in regulatory decision making – EMA publishes review its studies [Internet]. Accessed August 24, 2023. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/use-real-world-evidence-regulatory-decision-making-ema-publishes-review-its-studies.
   Google Scholar
• Feinberg, B. A., A. Gajra, M. E. Zettler, T. D. Phillips, P. EG, and J. K. Kish. 2020, Oct. Use of real-world evidence to support FDA approval of oncology drugs. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23(10):1358–1365. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flatiron Health Clinico-Genomic Database 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://flatiron.com/real-world-evidence/clinico-genomic-database-cgdb.
   Google Scholar
• Gu, X. S., and P. R. Rosenbaum. 1993. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2(4): 405–20. doi:10.1080/10618600.1993.10474623.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, J. D., and J. L. Schafer. 2007. Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science 22 (4). doi:10.1214/07-STS227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., and R. Nielsen. 2019, Oct. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Political Analysis 27(4):435–54. doi:10.1017/pan.2019.11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurki, P., H. N. Kang, N. Ekman, I. Knezevic, M. Weise, and E. Wolff-Holz. 2022. Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience. BioDrugs 36 (3):359–371. doi:10.1007/s40259-022-00533-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martina, R., D. Jenkins, S. Bujkiewicz, P. Dequen, and K. Abrams. 2018. The inclusion of real world evidence in clinical development planning. Trials 19 (1):468. doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2769-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCaffrey, D. F., G. Ridgeway, and A. R. Morral. 2004. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods 9(4):403. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Guidance on the licensing of biosimilar products [Internet]. 2022 [accessed 2023 Aug 28].https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-licensing-of-biosimilar-products/guidance-on-the-licensing-of-biosimilar-products.
   Google Scholar
• Mok, T. S. K., Y. L. Wu, I. Kudaba, D. M. Kowalski, B. C. Cho, H. Z. Turna, G. Castro, V. Srimuninnimit, K. K. Laktionov, I. Bondarenko, et al. 2019. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): A randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 393(10183):1819–1830. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32409-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oostema, J. A., A. Nickles, and M. J. Reeves. 2020. A comparison of probabilistic and deterministic match strategies for linking prehospital and in-hospital stroke registry data. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 29(10) 105151. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rohatgi, A. Webplotdigitizer: Version 4.6. 2022. https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. 1979. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74(366a):318–28. doi:10.1080/01621459.1979.10482513.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani, K. L. 2012. Propensity scores: Uses and limitations. PM&R 4(9):693–7. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS Institute, Version 9.4. 2013. http://www.sas.com/
   Google Scholar
• Schmidli, H., D. A. Häring, M. Thomas, A. Cassidy, S. Weber, and F. Bretz. 2020. Beyond randomized clinical trials: Use of external controls. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 107 (4):806–816. doi:10.1002/cpt.1723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secrest, M. H., R. W. Platt, C. R. Dormuth, D. Chateau, L. Targownik, R. Nie, C. M. Doyle, S. Dell’Aniello, and K. B. Filion. 2019. Extreme restriction design as a method for reducing confounding by indication in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 29 (S1):26–34. doi:10.1002/pds.4708.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart, E. A. 2010. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 25(1):1–21. doi:10.1214/09-STS313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Framework for FDA’s real world evidence program. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/media/120060/
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. NDA multi-disciplinary review and evaluation (NDA 214665) and approval package: LUMAKRAS (sotorasib) [Internet]. 2021 Accessed August 24, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2021/214665Orig1s000TOC.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration, Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations Guidance for Industry. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/media/97567
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Q., A. Gossai, S. Monroe, N. C. Nussbaum, and C. M. Parrinello. 2021, Dec. Validation analysis of a composite real‐world mortality endpoint for patients with cancer in the United States. Health Services Research 56(6):1281–1287. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Z. 2004. Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1):91–107. doi:10.1162/003465304323023705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar