Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Reassessments Across Six Health Technology Assessment Agencies.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Ashley Jaksa, Patrick Joseph Arena, Melinda Hanisch, Mark Marsico
{"title":"Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Reassessments Across Six Health Technology Assessment Agencies.","authors":"Ashley Jaksa, Patrick Joseph Arena, Melinda Hanisch, Mark Marsico","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review health technology assessment reassessments (HTARs) and characterize the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in HTARs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six agencies were chosen for inclusion in this targeted review: CADTH, NICE, HAS, G-BA/IQWiG, ZIN, and PBAC. Each agency's assessments were screened to identify their eight most recent HTARs, which were evaluated to determine if they used RWE. If for a given agency, less than half of the screened HTARs used RWE, we identified an additional four HTARs for evaluation. For each reassessment, we extracted drug characteristics, HTAR details, initial assessment details, and if/how RWE was used. Narrative synthesis in conjunction with descriptive statistics were used to characterize the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 40 HTARs across the agencies. Over half of the HTARs were for oncology therapies. Additionally, 55% used RWE; these reassessments tended to be for orphan therapies. RWE was submitted to address at least one clinical uncertainty, with the most common being related to the primary/secondary endpoints. The majority of RWE studies came from registry data (57.1%). Moreover, the proportion of HTARs resulting in no change in patient access was similar between HTARs that did and did not use RWE. Lastly, no de novo RWE comparative effectiveness studies were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings imply that RWE can play a role in addressing uncertainties identified at launch, especially in addition to clinical trial evidence; agencies and sponsors should collaborate/align on evidence needs and study feasibility to ensure RWE can be effectively used in reassessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To review health technology assessment reassessments (HTARs) and characterize the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in HTARs.

Methods: Six agencies were chosen for inclusion in this targeted review: CADTH, NICE, HAS, G-BA/IQWiG, ZIN, and PBAC. Each agency's assessments were screened to identify their eight most recent HTARs, which were evaluated to determine if they used RWE. If for a given agency, less than half of the screened HTARs used RWE, we identified an additional four HTARs for evaluation. For each reassessment, we extracted drug characteristics, HTAR details, initial assessment details, and if/how RWE was used. Narrative synthesis in conjunction with descriptive statistics were used to characterize the findings.

Results: We identified 40 HTARs across the agencies. Over half of the HTARs were for oncology therapies. Additionally, 55% used RWE; these reassessments tended to be for orphan therapies. RWE was submitted to address at least one clinical uncertainty, with the most common being related to the primary/secondary endpoints. The majority of RWE studies came from registry data (57.1%). Moreover, the proportion of HTARs resulting in no change in patient access was similar between HTARs that did and did not use RWE. Lastly, no de novo RWE comparative effectiveness studies were identified.

Conclusions: Our findings imply that RWE can play a role in addressing uncertainties identified at launch, especially in addition to clinical trial evidence; agencies and sponsors should collaborate/align on evidence needs and study feasibility to ensure RWE can be effectively used in reassessments.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信