Search

Abstract Background Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare lysosomal disorder. Patients suffer from relentless neurological deterioration leading to premature death. Recently, new treatment modalities, including gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, have been developed. Those advances increase the need for high-quality research infrastructure to adequately compare treatments, execute post-marketing surveillance, and perform health technology assessments (HTA). To facilitate this, a group of MLD experts started the MLD initiative (MLDi) and initiated an academia-led European MLD registry: the MLDi. An expert-based consensus procedure, namely a modified Delphi procedure, was used to determine the data elements required to answer academic, regulatory, and HTA research questions. Results Three distinct sets of data elements were defined by the 13-member expert panel. The minimal set (n = 13) contained demographics and basic disease characteristics. The core set (n = 55) included functional status scores in terms of motor, manual, speech and eating abilities, and causal and supportive treatment characteristics. Health-related quality of life scores were included that were also deemed necessary for HTA. The optional set (n = 31) contained additional clinical aspects, such as findings at neurological examination, detailed motor function, presence of peripheral neuropathy, gall bladder involvement and micturition. Conclusion Using a modified Delphi procedure with physicians from the main expert centers, consensus was reached on a core set of data that can be collected retrospectively and prospectively. With this consensus-based approach, an important step towards harmonization was made. This unique dataset will support knowledge about the disease and facilitate regulatory requirements related to the launch of new treatments.

Abstract Background There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. Results Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. Conclusions Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.