Jay Prensky, MD, talks about the pluses and clinical implications of doing real-world observational studies as opposed to clinical trials.
Jay Prensky, MD, FACS, a partner with the Pennsylvania Retina Specialists, spoke with MD Magazine about how clinical trials don't always turn out the way they're anticipated to in a real-world setting, and why real-world observational studies - like the PALADIN study Prensky presented at the American Society of Retina Specialists annual meeting - are more and more important.
Real-world trials tend to reflect what clinicians are actually doing in terms of patient treatment, and as the concern about treatment burden continues to grow, understanding how to use the data received from the controlled environment of clinical trials in the real world is ever more pertinent.
Jay Prensky, MD, FACS: Well clinical trials provide very, very important data, but again how people use clinical trials in the real world differs. We see that with the macular degeneration trials that patients generally receive fewer injections, their visual outcomes aren't as good. And diabetic macular edema sees a similar thing.
So in a clinical trial, there's very strict adherence to protocol, whereas real world, I think, reflects what we're doing. So if you look at this prospectively, I think we get a reasonable view of what clinicians are doing in the world and how a real-world prospective study may, you know, effect ongoing treatment.