ArticleTherapeutic advances in rare disease
Could an outcome-based agreement be operationalized using real-world data from the Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry? Perspectives from an expert-led assessment in spinal muscular atrophy.
Article in Therapeutic advances in rare disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) may facilitate earlier patient access to promising therapies, particularly when evidence is limited. The authors of this paper investigated how to operationalize an OBA using real-world data (RWD) from the Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry (CNDR). Objective: The first objective of this research was to determine which spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) health outcomes in the CNDR are suitable for an OBA. The second objective was to evaluate the current process of data collection in the CNDR and explore how to operationalize data processes to support an OBA, including identifying gaps and proposing solutions. Design: This qualitative expert-led assessment was conducted through a series of focus group discussions with selected experts. Methods: A selected group of experts participated in 17 focus group meetings. The ability of the CNDR to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for an OBA was evaluated for eight SMA health outcomes. The criteria used were data readiness, interpretability, and timeframe within the CNDR. Next, the processes involved were evaluated, specifically to determine how data tracking within the CNDR could be operationalized for an OBA, including identifying gaps and possible solutions. Based on the findings, the group proposed a future state for an OBA process using the CNDR. The group followed up with stakeholder feedback interviews to validate the findings of this research and to gather insights. Results: Five SMA outcomes within the CNDR were identified as potentially suitable outcomes for OBA. Three process gaps were identified in the current state of the CNDR, and corresponding solutions were proposed. A proposed future-state process flow for CNDR was developed to support RWE generation for OBA. Conclusions: Expert consultations suggest that operationalizing an OBA using CNDR RWD is feasible.
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.