Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39348118›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Calibrating Observational Health Record Data Against a Randomized Trial.

David Merola, Ulka Campbell, David Lenis, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Shirley Wang, Ann Madsen, Gillis Carrigan, Victoria Chia, Osayi E Ovbiosa, Simone Pinheiro and 34 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

44 authors.

David MerolaAetion, New York, New York.
Ulka CampbellAetion, New York, New York.
David LenisAetion, New York, New York.
Sebastian SchneeweissDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shirley WangDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann MadsenAetion, New York, New York.
Gillis CarriganCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, San Francisco, California.
Victoria ChiaCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, San Francisco, California.
Osayi E OvbiosaAbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois.
Simone PinheiroAbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois.
Nelson PaceAbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois.
Amanda BrunoBayer Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mark StewartFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sajan KhoslaAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Yiduo ZhangAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Mothaffar RimawiBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Rachele Hendricks-SturrupDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, District of Columbia.
Jenny HuangGilead Sciences, Foster City, California.
Aliki TaylorGilead Sciences, Foster City, California.
XiaoLong JiaoPfizer, New York, New York.
Lauren BecnelPfizer, New York, New York.
Lynn McRoyPfizer, New York, New York.
Joy EckertReagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration, Washington, District of Columbia.
Carla RodriguezReagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration, Washington, District of Columbia.
Orsolya LunacsekBayer Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, New Jersey.
Raymond HarveyJohnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Joel GreshockJohnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Khaled SarsourJohnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Andrew BelliCOTA Healthcare, New York, New York.
C K WangCOTA Healthcare, New York, New York.
Laura FernandesCOTA Healthcare, New York, New York.
James ChenTempus, Chicago, Illinois.
Brian San FranciscoTempus, Chicago, Illinois.
Chithra SangliTempus, Chicago, Illinois.
Yana NatanzonConcertAI, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
K Arnold ChanTriNetX, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Neil DhopeshwarkarTriNetX, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mark ShapiroxCures, Oakland, California.
Asher WassermanxCures, Oakland, California.
Jameson QuinnxCures, Oakland, California.
Megan ReesLoopback Analytics, Dallas, Texas.
Travis RobinsonLoopback Analytics, Dallas, Texas.
Ben TaylorAetion, New York, New York.
Jennifer R RiderAetion, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The conditions required for health record data sources to accurately assess treatment effectiveness remain unclear. Emulation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with health record data and subsequent calibration of the results can help elucidate this. Objective: To pilot an emulation of the KEYNOTE-189 RCT using a commercially available electronic health record (EHR) data source. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used an EHR database spanning from April 2007 to February 2023. Follow-up began on treatment initiation and proceeded until an outcome event, loss to follow-up, end of data, or end of study period (640 days). The population-based cohort was ascertained from EHRs provided by 52 health systems across the US. Eligibility criteria were defined as closely as possible to the benchmark RCT. Patients with non-small cell lung cancer initiating first-line treatment for metastatic disease were included. Patients with evidence of squamous non-small cell lung cancer, primary nonlung malignant neoplasms, or identified EGFR/ALK variations were excluded. Data were analyzed from June to October 2023. Exposures: Initiation of first-line pembrolizumab and chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy in both groups was defined as a combination of pemetrexed and platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were 12-month survival probability and mortality hazard ratio (HR). Results: A total of 1854 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.6] years; 971 [52.4%] men) were eligible, including 589 patients who initiated pembrolizumab and chemotherapy and 1265 patients who initiated chemotherapy only. The cohort included 364 Black patients (19.6%) and 1445 White patients (77.9%). The 12-month survival probabilities were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.54-0.65) in the pembrolizumab group and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.55-0.62) in the chemotherapy-only group, compared with 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74) in the KEYNOTE-189 pembrolizumab group and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.42-0.56) in the KEYNOTE-189 chemotherapy-only group. The mortality HR was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-1.16), compared with 0.49 (95% CI, 0.38-0.64) in the KEYNOTE-189 RCT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study piloting an RCT emulation, results were incongruous with the benchmark trial. Differences in patient treatment and data capture between the RCT and EHR populations, confounding by indication, treatment crossover, and accuracy of captured diagnoses may explain these findings. Future feasibility assessments will require data sources to have important oncology-specific measures curated.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsLung NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCalibrationCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedpembrolizumab

Identifiers

PMID39348118
PMCPMC11443351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.