ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Emulating randomized trials by observational database studies: the RCT-DUPLICATE initiative in COPD and asthma.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Data-driven trial design: use of target trial emulation to evaluate eligibility criteria in asthma and COPD.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of the Importance and Relevance of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Observational studies are increasingly used to provide real-world evidence in regulatory decision-making. The RCT-DUPLICATE initiative conducted observational studies emulating 2 published randomized trials in patients with asthma and 3 in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For each trial, new-user cohorts were constructed from 2 US healthcare claims databases, comparing initiators of the study and comparator drugs, matched on propensity scores. Proportional hazards models were used to compare the treatments on study outcomes. The observational studies involved more subjects than the corresponding trials, with treatment arms well-matched on baseline characteristics. An asthma example involved emulation of the 26-week FDA-mandated D5896 trial. With 6494 asthma patients per arm, the hazard ratio (HR) of a serious asthma-related event with budesonide-formoterol vs budesonide was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.63-2.65) compared with 1.07 (95% CI, 0.70-1.65) in the trial. A COPD example is the emulation of the one-year IMPACT trial. With 4365 COPD patients per arm, the HR of a COPD exacerbation with triple therapy vs dual bronchodilators was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00-1.17) compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91) in the trial. We found mainly discordant results between observational analyses and their emulated randomized trials, likely from the forced discontinuation of treatments prior to randomization in the trials, not mimicable in the observational analyses. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.