Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Considerations for emulations of randomized controlled trials using real-world data: learnings from an emulation of
Amanda M Kong1, Dionna Andrean1, Saarah Khan1
1Aetion, New York, NY 10001, USA.
None:
Aim: The eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials can exclude groups of patients indicated for the therapy post-approval and the trial population may not be generalizable to routine care. We attempted to emulate the MONALEESA-2 trial of ribociclib plus letrozole for women with advanced breast cancer using real-world data (RWD) to assess the impact of modifying entry criteria of the trial, which found a survival benefit associated with ribociclib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76). Materials & methods: Post-menopausal women with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were identified in a linked electronic health records-claims database. Treatment groups were ribociclib plus letrozole or letrozole without ribociclib (referred to as letrozole). Overall survival was compared between the two groups using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weights and propensity score matching. Results: There were 132,406 patients who initiated ribociclib plus letrozole or letrozole from 13 March 2017 (ribociclib approval) to 30 September 2023. After applying trial entry criteria, the sample size was 3912 patients. Compared with real-world patients, trial participants tended to be younger (>50% were <65 years old compared with 38%) and more commonly had liver or lung metastases (>50% vs <15%). Among real-world patients, those treated with ribociclib plus letrozole had higher comorbidity scores (mean Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Score 15 vs 9) and were more likely to have metastatic disease burden than patients treated with letrozole (85% vs 45%). We were unable to emulate the trial findings; all HRs in this analysis were >1. Conclusion: Real-world patients may differ from those participating in randomized controlled trials. Along with data source limitations, such as missing clinical information or incomplete capture of mortality, this can impact the ability to emulate trials in RWD. However, RWD is key for describing patients in routine care and to answer relevant questions following the approval of new therapies.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
03:05Influence of Emotional Factors on the Efficacy of Acupuncture Treatment for Overweight Complicated with Hyperlipidemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Published on: November 21, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...