Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 242Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
OPINION
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 61-63

Real world evidence (RWE) - Are we (RWE) ready?


Boehringer Ingelheim India Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication24-Apr-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Viraj Ramesh Suvarna
C-35, Rose Blossom, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_36_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Real world evidence is important as it complements data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Both have limitations in design, interpretation, and extrapolatability. It is imperative one designs real world studies in the right way, else it can be misleading. An RCT is always considered higher in the evidence ladder and when there is discordance between a real world study and an RCT, it is the latter which is always considered pristine because of the way it is conducted, e.g., randomization, prospective, double-blind, etc. A real world study can also be done prospectively, and propensity score matching can be used to construct comparable cohorts but may not be able to account for certain biases or confounding factors the way an RCT can do. Nevertheless, comparative effectiveness research in the real world is being resorted to, especially for efficiency studies or pharmacoeconomic analyses, and with the advent of machine learning, the electronic healthcare database mining can result in algorithms that help doctors identify clinical characteristics that correlate with optimal response of a patient to a drug/regimen, thus helping him/her select the right patient for the right drug.

Keywords: Individualized, limitations, propensity score matching, randomised, real


How to cite this article:
Suvarna VR. Real world evidence (RWE) - Are we (RWE) ready?. Perspect Clin Res 2018;9:61-3

How to cite this URL:
Suvarna VR. Real world evidence (RWE) - Are we (RWE) ready?. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2018 [cited 2021 Dec 2];9:61-3. Available from: https://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2018/9/2/61/231094

What is real-world evidence? Obviously, evidence that is generated or exists in the real world. Why is it important? Typically, evidence generated within a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is considered higher than that in the real world. Where hypotheses are generated double blinding and randomization (which ensures every patient has an equal chance of being allocated to treatment A or treatment B) are ways of ensuring that comparable cohorts are created, and bias is minimized to the extent possible. Naturally, a hypothesis can be tested within an RCT. However, there are limitations of an RCT. For example, in an RCT, there are inclusion and exclusion criteria. These eligibility criteria ensure that a homogeneous and representative sample is collected. However, in the real world, can any patient be excluded? Data from an RCT can only be extrapolated to the kind of patients who were eligible for the RCT. Hence, there are limitations of generalizability. Moreover, that is where real-world evidence comes in, to supplement data from RCTs, and hopefully bridge the gap between the controlled environment of an RCT and the harsh realities of the real world.[1]

In an ideal world, both the RCT and real-world evidence coexist and one can even do large simple studies, where the two elements are blended such that the results do mirror what happens in the real world. Such hybrid, efficacy-effectiveness studies can help in advancing a closer correlation to the real world within a clinical development program. However, real-world studies are fraught with their own limitations. Can one randomize in the real world? What about retrospective analyses of databases (electronic medical records) in the real world or comparative effectiveness research? They have their uses viz., in comparing the cost-effectiveness of two regimens in the real world, beyond the rigors of an RCT. They can help in certain policy decisions. However, they are at best studies that can generate hypotheses, and if one wants to confirm the same, one will need to do RCTs. Moreover, what if there is discordance between the results of an observational, real-world study and an RCT? As happened in the US cohort of CVD real, a large retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors versus in patients on other glucose-lowering drugs.[2]

Where the all-cause mortality was reduced by canagliflozin by a whopping 62%, which was statistically significant for superiority, but in the RCT, the integrated analysis of the CVOT, the CANVAS Program, the all cause mortality risk reduction with canagliflozin was only 13% and not significant. In fact, in the left truncated dataset, it was only 4%, again not significant. A recent article in Diabetes Care, by Samy Suissa, has dissected out this registry and pointed out reasons why the results seemed exaggerated. For example, he mentioned immortal time bias or time-lag bias, which means that, for patients to have been prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors, they would first have had to be other glucose-lowering drugs, and then an SGLT-2 inhibitor was added. This meant that some of the benefits attributed to the gliflozin could have been due to the other glucose-lowering drugs prescribed earlier, so was this a fair comparison? Hence, this is also called survivor bias. If the real-world study is not done prospectively, then one more bias creeps in, called channeling bias, as doctors generally tend to put patients on a new drug, only those who did not respond well to the first drug.[3]

Real-world data are data captured in a noninterventional, observational manner, in a natural, uncontrolled setting – outside of traditional clinical trials. Per ISPOR, data used for decision making that are not collected in conventional randomized controlled trials are termed real-world data. The European Working Relative Effectiveness Working Group defines real-world data as a measure in understanding health-care data collected under real-life practice circumstances.[4]

A noninterventional study (NIS) conducted to assess safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of marketed medicines in clinical practice, i.e., in a naturalistic setting where choice of therapy is consistent with approved prescribing information (no study drug to be supplied) and in line with current practice at the study site, and other aspects of patient care, including clinical examinations, laboratory investigations, and the use of instrumentation, other invasive and noninvasive procedures, are in consonance with current practice at the study site, is an example of a real-world study. It tests the effectiveness of the drug, as against an RCT in the premarketing phase which tests the efficacy of the drug. It is easier to conduct than an RCT, cheaper too, but the credibility is considered low, as one is never able to account for all biases and confounders. Examples of NIS are postmarketing surveillance studies, which are large, multicenter studies involving many physicians and subjects, certain safety assessment of marketed medicines studies, and Anwendungsbeobachtung studies.

Safety is another reason why real-world studies are conducted. No matter what we may achieve in terms of characterizing the safety profile of a drug in up to Phase III trials, unless the drug is tested in the real world, where no patient can be excluded, where the drug is not given free of cost, where there is no monitoring for compliance, the full safety profile of the drug can never be fully characterized. This is why it is said in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Pharmacology that, unless a drug is capable of doing some harm, it is unlikely that it will have much of an effect.

Practice-based medicine is another term that is bandied about as bedside to bench is also an important way to advance science and not only bench to bedside. However, for this to happen, one should have clinician researcher investigators. Doctors who, even in their busy practice, are able to see patterns in their practice, then formulate a research hypothesis, and then proceed to test it. Thus, a doctor can be good at both good clinical practice (GCP) and good clinical research practice (GCRP). One can feed the other and vice versa, and this way medicine advances. Practice uses knowledge, focuses on individuals, has a short action span, the reward is immediate, it respects authority, follows custom, earns revenue, and stimulates research. Research creates knowledge, focuses on groups, has a long action span, the reward is delayed, it questions authority, challenges custom, earns reputation, and enriches practice.

Just as there is a time and place for everything, and everything in its place, just as there is a place for both generics and patent-protected innovator drugs, so also there is a place for both RCT generated and real-world evidence. There are limitations with both RCTs and real-world analyses. Taken together, information from both RCTs and real-world analyses is important to confirm the validity of safety and efficacy data for new agents. What makes real-world data robust? Preferably, a naïve patient population, adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics using a statistical tool called propensity score matching (to create comparable cohorts in the real world, after observing how a doctor decides which drug for which patient), large patient numbers, prospective evaluation, and a long study period and extensive follow-up.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]

Typically, doctors in India believe all they need to do is collect data from patients in their practice to whom they have prescribed, for example, a new drug. In other words, a one-arm longitudinal study. They do not realize that unless one has a control group for comparison, the results will not be relevant. Plus, one can have all sorts of safety concerns being reported in an unbalanced manner. Generally, adverse events on the older standard of care are not reported, while safety information on the new drug is always reported, at least within the first 2 years (Weber effect). Sometimes, if the two comparator groups are not well matched, and the real-world study does not account for confounders and biases, one is never sure of the authenticity and veracity of the interpretation of such data.

If our patient is older than, younger than, sicker than, healthier than, ethnically different from, taller, shorter, simply different from the subjects of a study, do the results pertain? The art of clinical decision-making is judgment, an even more difficult concept to grapple with than evidence. RCTs focused on a representative sample and made homogeneous through strict eligibility criteria; drug is given free of cost and laboratory tests are also free of cost, they are monitored for adherence and findings are extrapolated to the population, but with the limitation of generalizability. In the real world of clinical practice, it is always the individual patient, and every patient can be heterogeneous in the way he experiences the disease and responds to a drug. Naturally, it is not about whether one drug is better than another, but about to which drug or regimen (in sequence or combination) does the patient respond best. From an RCT or GCRP to the real world of GCP, one moves from standardized care to standard of care. Guidelines based on evidence from RCTs may not be applicable to every individual patient one sees in practice.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER. Beyond the randomized clinical trial: The role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation 2008;118:1294-303.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Kosiborod M, Cavender MA, Fu AZ, Wilding JP, Khunti K, Holl RW, et al. Lower risk of heart failure and death in patients initiated on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs: The CVD-REAL study (Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular outcomes in new users of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors). Circulation 2017;136:249-59.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Suissa S. Lower risk of death with SGLT2 inhibitors in observational studies: Real or bias? Diabetes Care 2018;41:6-10.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Annemans L, Aristides M, Kubin M. Real-Life Data: A Growing Need. ISPOR Connections; Available from: http://www.ispor.org/news/articles/oct07/rld.asp.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, Zhang R, Southworth MR, Levenson M, et al. Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2015;131:157-64.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Lauffenburger JC, Farley JF, Gehi AK, Rhoney DH, Brookhart MA, Fang G, et al. Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin in real-world US patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A retrospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4. pii: e001798.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Huisman MV, Lip GY, Diener HC, Dubner SJ, Halperin JL, Ma CS, et al. Design and rationale of global registry on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation: A global registry program on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am Heart J 2014;167:329-34.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Ruhl M, Rassen JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: Methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;90:777-90.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:399-424.  Back to cited text no. 9
    



This article has been cited by
1 Real-World Trends in Characteristics of Patients with Migraine Newly Initiated on Erenumab in the USA: A Retrospective Analysis
Juanzhi Fang,Stephanie Korrer,Jonathan C. Johnson,Mark A. Cheadle,Roshani Shah,Matias L. Ferraris,Cristina Lopez
Advances in Therapy. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study
Jemma M. Boyle,Gemma Hegarty,Christopher Frampton,Elizabeth Harvey-Jones,Joanna Dodkins,Katharina Beyer,Gincy George,Richard Sullivan,Christopher Booth,Ajay Aggarwal
European Journal of Cancer. 2021; 155: 136
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Systematic literature review of cross-protective effect of HPV vaccines based on data from randomized clinical trials and real-world evidence
Darron R. Brown,Elmar A. Joura,Glorian P. Yen,Smita Kothari,Alain Luxembourg,Alfred Saah,Anuj Walia,Gonzalo Perez,Hanane Khoury,Danielle Badgley,Margaret Stanley
Vaccine. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Integrating genomics with biomarkers and therapeutic targets to invigorate cardiovascular drug development
Michael V. Holmes,Tom G. Richardson,Brian A. Ference,Neil M. Davies,George Davey Smith
Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 A comparative analysis between low-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in Asian men
Youquan Li,Thomas Chan Kong Ngai,Siqin Zhou,Jerome Yap Haw Hwong,Eric Pang Pei Ping,Ashley Ong Li Kuan,Michael Wang Lian Chek,Melvin Chua Lee Kiang,Wen Shen Looi,Wen Long Nei,Eu Tiong Chua,Weber Lau Kam On,Terence Tan Wee Kiat,John Yuen Shyi Peng,Jeffrey Tuan Kit Loong
Acta Oncologica. 2021; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Real-World Experience with Two-Drug Regimens in HIV-1-Infected Patients Beyond the Indication of Clinical Trials: 48 Weeksæ Results
Ana Arancón Pardo,Marta Moreno Palomino,Inmaculada Jiménez-Nácher,Francisco Moreno,María Ángeles González Fernández,Juan González-García,Alicia Herrero Ambrosio
AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Safety and Effectiveness of Silicone Gel–Filled Breast Implants in Primary Augmentation Patients
Daniel Maxwell,Megan Estes,Jennifer McMillen Walcott,John W Canady,Tina D Hunter,Larry Gache,Bernadette Wang-Ashraf,Diane Alexander
Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Burosumab treatment in adults with X-linked hypophosphataemia: 96-week patient-reported outcomes and ambulatory function from a randomised phase 3 trial and open-label extension
Karine Briot,Anthony A Portale,Maria Luisa Brandi,Thomas O Carpenter,Hae Ii Cheong,Martine Cohen-Solal,Rachel K Crowley,Richard Eastell,Yasuo Imanishi,Steven Ing,Karl Insogna,Nobuaki Ito,Suzanne Jan de Beur,Muhammad K Javaid,Peter Kamenicky,Richard Keen,Takuo Kubota,Robin H Lachmann,Farzana Perwad,Pisit Pitukcheewanont,Stuart H Ralston,Yasuhiro Takeuchi,Hiroyuki Tanaka,Thomas J Weber,Han-Wook Yoo,Annabel Nixon,Mark Nixon,Wei Sun,Angela Williams,Erik A Imel
RMD Open. 2021; 7(3): e001714
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Challenges and Opportunities for Real-World Evidence in Metastatic Luminal Breast Cancer
Diana Lüftner, Andreas D. Hartkopf, Michael P. Lux, Friedrich Overkamp, Hans Tesch, Adriana Titzmann, Patrik Pöschke, Markus Wallwiener, Volkmar Müller, Matthias W. Beckmann, Erik Belleville, Wolfgang Janni, Tanja N. Fehm, Hans-Christian Kolberg, Johannes Ettl, Diethelm Wallwiener, Andreas Schneeweiss, Sara Y. Brucker, Peter A. Fasching
Breast Care. 2021; 16(2): 108
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Clinical experiences and predictors of success of treatment with vedolizumab in IBD patients: a cohort study
Laura Mühl,Emily Becker,Tanja M. Müller,Raja Atreya,Imke Atreya,Markus F. Neurath,Sebastian Zundler
BMC Gastroenterology. 2021; 21(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Design, implementation, and management of an international medical device registry
Herbert Mauch, Jasmin Kaur, Colin Irwin, Josie Wyss
Trials. 2021; 22(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Cost Consequence Analysis
Alessandra Buja,Giulia Pasello,Giuseppe De Luca,Alberto Bortolami,Manuel Zorzi,Federico Rea,Carlo Pinato,Antonella Dal Cin,Anna De Polo,Marco Schiavon,Andrea Zuin,Marco Marchetti,Giovanna Scroccaro,Vincenzo Baldo,Massimo Rugge,Valentina Guarneri,PierFranco Conte
JCO Oncology Practice. 2021; 17(8): e1085
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Integrating Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Decision-Making Process: A Systematic Analysis of Experiences in the US, EU, and China Using a Logic Model
Meng Li,Shengqi Chen,Yunfeng Lai,Zuanji Liang,Jiaqi Wang,Junnan Shi,Haojie Lin,Dongning Yao,Hao Hu,Carolina Oi Lam Ung
Frontiers in Medicine. 2021; 8
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Real-World Experience with Targeted Therapy in BRAF Mutant Advanced Melanoma Patients: Results from a Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study Advanced Melanoma in Russia (Experience) (ADMIRE)
Kristina V. Orlova,Evgeniy V. Ledin,Natalia V. Zhukova,Rashida V. Orlova,Elena V. Karabina,Mikhail V. Volkonskiy,Daniil L. Stroyakovskiy,Aleksandr N. Yurchenkov,Svetlana A. Protsenko,Alexey V. Novik,Ludmila V. Vorotilina,Fedor V. Moiseenko,Victor L. Chang,Aleksandr I. Kazmin,Svetlana A. Tkachenko,Sergey V. Gamaunov,David R. Naskhletashvili,Igor V. Samoylenko,Anastasia S. Vikhrova,Igor A. Utyashev,Galina Yu. Kharkevich,Natalia N. Petenko,Irina Zh. Shubina,Lev V. Demidov
Cancers. 2021; 13(11): 2529
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 A multicenter retrospective study to evaluate safety and efficacy of tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate docetaxel in various cancers
ShirishS Alurkar,Chanchal Goswami,Kamlesh Bokil,NirmalVivek Raut,Govind Babu
Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. 2020; 41(4): 543
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Real world safety of bevacizumab in cancer patients: A systematic literature review of case reports
Amit Dang,P. Jagan Mohan Venkateshwara Rao,Ravi Kishore,B.N. Vallish
International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 2020; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer: Results From a Prospective, Real-World Data Study With Brazilian Patients Treated With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, Conformal and Conventional Radiation Techniques
Marcos Santos,Luís Felipe Oliveira e Silva,Hugo F. Kohler,Otavio Curioni,Ricardo Vilela,Marcel Fang,Carmen Silvia Passos Lima,João Pedro Gomes,Aline Chaves,Bruno Resende,Karine Trindade,Mauricio Collares,Fernando Obs,Janaina Brollo,Ronaldo Cavalieri,Ediane Ferreira,Leandro Brust,Doralina Rabello,Christian Domenge,Luiz Paulo Kowalski
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Developing a framework to incorporate real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions: the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration
Kelvin Chan,Seungree Nam,Bill Evans,Claire de Oliveira,Alexandra Chambers,Scott Gavura,Jeffrey Hoch,Rebecca E Mercer,Wei Fang Dai,Jaclyn Beca,Mina Tadrous,Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
BMJ Open. 2020; 10(1): e032884
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Sicily Network for Liver Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Network Model for the Management of Primary Liver Tumors
Ciro Celsa,Giuseppe Cabibbo,Duilio Pagano,Vito di Marco,Calogero Cammà,Salvatore Gruttadauria
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, and COVID-19: Demonstrating the Actionability of Real-World Evidence
Sean Hennessy,Jordana B Cohen
American Journal of Hypertension. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Klinische Endpunkte in Real-World-Register-Studien
Andreas D. Hartkopf,Julius Emons,Michael P. Lux,Florin-Andrei Taran,Friedrich Overkamp,Hans Tesch,Adriana Titzmann,Patrik Pöschke,Diana Lüftner,Markus Wallwiener,Volkmar Müller,Matthias W. Beckmann,Erik Belleville,Wolfgang Janni,Tanja N. Fehm,Hans-Christian Kolberg,Johannes Ettl,Diethelm Wallwiener,Andreas Schneeweiss,Sara Y. Brucker,Peter A. Fasching
Der Onkologe. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Real-world outcomes of rivaroxaban treatment in elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation
Takanari Kitazono,Takanori Ikeda,Satoshi Ogawa,Jyoji Nakagawara,Kazuo Minematsu,Susumu Miyamoto,Yuji Murakawa,Mary Cavaliere,Yasuhiro Hayashi,Yoko Kidani,Yutaka Okayama,Toshiyuki Sunaya,Shoichiro Sato,Satoshi Yamanaka
Heart and Vessels. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 SGLT2 Inhibitors: Cardiovascular Benefits Beyond HbA1c—Translating Evidence into Practice
Amar Ali,Steve Bain,Debbie Hicks,Phillip Newland Jones,Dipesh C. Patel,Marc Evans,Kevin Fernando,June James,Nicola Milne,Adie Viljoen,John Wilding
Diabetes Therapy. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 Quantifying the diagnostic pathway for patients with cognitive impairment: real-world data from Australia
Christopher M. Black,Michael Woodward,Baishali M. Ambegaonkar,Alana Philips,James Pike,Eddie Jones,Joseph Husbands,Rezaul K. Khandker
International Psychogeriatrics. 2019; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 Growth hormone replacement in adults: Real-world data from two large studies in US and Europe
Matthias M. Weber,Murray B. Gordon,Charlotte Höybye,Jens Otto L. Jørgensen,Gediminas Puras,Vera Popovic-Brkic,Mark E. Molitch,Vlady Ostrow,Natalia Holot,Alberto Pietropoli,Beverly M.K. Biller
Growth Hormone & IGF Research. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Real-world evidence vs. randomized control trials
M. Deleuran,C. Vestergaard
British Journal of Dermatology. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
27 Use of Dapagliflozin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Real-World Evidence Study in Indian Patients (FOREFRONT)
Vijay Viswanathan,K.P. Singh
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2019; 21(8): 415
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
28 Real-world use of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system for patient-controlled management of acute postoperative pain: a prospective noninterventional study
Esther Pogatzki-Zahn,Peter Kranke,Judit Winner,Wolfgang Weyland,Alexander Reich,Ursula Vigelius-Rauch,Michael Paland,Thorsten Löhr,Leopold Eberhart
Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2019; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
29 Real-world experience of venetoclax with azacitidine for untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia
Amanda C. Winters,Jonathan A. Gutman,Enkhtsetseg Purev,Molly Nakic,Jennifer Tobin,Stephanie Chase,Jeff Kaiser,Lindsey Lyle,Chelsey Boggs,Keri Halsema,Jeffrey T. Schowinsky,Julie Rosser,Mark D. Ewalt,Bradford Siegele,Vishal Rana,Steven Schuster,Diana Abbott,Brett M. Stevens,Craig T. Jordan,Clayton Smith,Daniel A. Pollyea
Blood Advances. 2019; 3(20): 2911
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
30 A New Surgical Site Infection Risk Score: Infection Risk Index in Cardiac Surgery
Juan Bustamante-Munguira,Francisco Herrera-Gómez,Miguel Ruiz-Álvarez,Ana Hernández-Aceituno,Angels Figuerola-Tejerina
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019; 8(4): 480
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4570    
    Printed111    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded896    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 30    

Recommend this journal