Using Real-World Evidence for Clinical Development to Address the Gap Between Marketing Authorisation and Reimbursement in European Countries: Insights From Literature Review

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Antoine Pugeat, Ramon Hernandez, Walid Shouman, Divya Pushkarna, Jean-Paul Collet, Paulo Carita
{"title":"Using Real-World Evidence for Clinical Development to Address the Gap Between Marketing Authorisation and Reimbursement in European Countries: Insights From Literature Review","authors":"Antoine Pugeat,&nbsp;Ramon Hernandez,&nbsp;Walid Shouman,&nbsp;Divya Pushkarna,&nbsp;Jean-Paul Collet,&nbsp;Paulo Carita","doi":"10.1111/jep.70090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies require evidence relevant to elements like the ‘added value’ of the drug, efficacy and safety in real life, or data regarding the drugs' effects on different subgroups of interest. Using Real-World Evidence (RWE) during drug clinical development can provide the information required for HTA approval.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Two targeted literature reviews (TLRs) were conducted to narratively describe the reasons for the gap between EMA market authorisation and market access in France and Germany; the possible importance of RWE studies to provide relevant clinical evidence for HTA approval and, therefore, their role to support drug clinical development programmes in Europe.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Relevant studies were identified by searching Embase using predefined search strategy via the Ovid platform. Additional studies were included from external keyword searches on Google Scholar and PubMed that address the objective of the review. Further searches were conducted in the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA) websites to identify examples of reimbursement submissions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The average time to access drugs was 128 days in Germany and 508 days in France. Delays in patient access to new drugs resulted in diminished patient benefits. The delays in the approval of new drugs were attributed to several clinical factors, including: (i) lack of safety and efficacy data from the submitted clinical trial; (ii) absence of clinically relevant comparators; (iii) lack of demonstration of added value and (iv) inability to contextualise data to the local population. RWE can be valuable in supporting clinical evidence generation by providing a complementary set of information to address gaps in knowledge regarding the drug's effectiveness and safety. It can also offer an external arm for comparison when randomisation is not feasible. Furthermore, RWE can support the demonstration of a drug's added benefit over existing therapies and help define its role in disease management. However, RWE studies also face several limitations, including variability in data quality, challenges in addressing specific research questions, methodological constraints and concerns about the credibility of analyses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Access to medication is usually delayed due to the HTA agency's requirements for scientifically robust clinical evidence about the drug's effectiveness and safety assessed in specific subpopulations, with relevant and valid endpoints. The utilisation of RWE is revolutionising the whole clinical development process that supports HTA submissions. Early engagement among stakeholders during the drug's clinical development on how providing high-quality, relevant clinical data might be addressed is crucial for ensuring the robustness, reliability and acceptance of RWE.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies require evidence relevant to elements like the ‘added value’ of the drug, efficacy and safety in real life, or data regarding the drugs' effects on different subgroups of interest. Using Real-World Evidence (RWE) during drug clinical development can provide the information required for HTA approval.

Objective

Two targeted literature reviews (TLRs) were conducted to narratively describe the reasons for the gap between EMA market authorisation and market access in France and Germany; the possible importance of RWE studies to provide relevant clinical evidence for HTA approval and, therefore, their role to support drug clinical development programmes in Europe.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching Embase using predefined search strategy via the Ovid platform. Additional studies were included from external keyword searches on Google Scholar and PubMed that address the objective of the review. Further searches were conducted in the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA) websites to identify examples of reimbursement submissions.

Results

The average time to access drugs was 128 days in Germany and 508 days in France. Delays in patient access to new drugs resulted in diminished patient benefits. The delays in the approval of new drugs were attributed to several clinical factors, including: (i) lack of safety and efficacy data from the submitted clinical trial; (ii) absence of clinically relevant comparators; (iii) lack of demonstration of added value and (iv) inability to contextualise data to the local population. RWE can be valuable in supporting clinical evidence generation by providing a complementary set of information to address gaps in knowledge regarding the drug's effectiveness and safety. It can also offer an external arm for comparison when randomisation is not feasible. Furthermore, RWE can support the demonstration of a drug's added benefit over existing therapies and help define its role in disease management. However, RWE studies also face several limitations, including variability in data quality, challenges in addressing specific research questions, methodological constraints and concerns about the credibility of analyses.

Conclusion

Access to medication is usually delayed due to the HTA agency's requirements for scientifically robust clinical evidence about the drug's effectiveness and safety assessed in specific subpopulations, with relevant and valid endpoints. The utilisation of RWE is revolutionising the whole clinical development process that supports HTA submissions. Early engagement among stakeholders during the drug's clinical development on how providing high-quality, relevant clinical data might be addressed is crucial for ensuring the robustness, reliability and acceptance of RWE.

利用真实世界的临床开发证据解决欧洲国家上市授权与报销之间的差距:文献综述的启示
背景 健康技术评估(HTA)机构要求提供与药物的 "附加值"、现实生活中的有效性和安全性等要素相关的证据,或与药物对不同兴趣亚群的影响相关的数据。在药物临床开发过程中使用真实世界证据 (RWE) 可以提供 HTA 批准所需的信息。 目标 进行两篇有针对性的文献综述 (TLR),叙述法国和德国的 EMA 市场授权与市场准入之间存在差距的原因;RWE 研究在为 HTA 批准提供相关临床证据方面可能具有的重要性,以及它们在支持欧洲药物临床开发计划方面的作用。 方法 通过 Ovid 平台使用预定义检索策略检索 Embase,确定相关研究。此外,还在 Google Scholar 和 PubMed 上通过外部关键词搜索纳入了与本综述目标相关的其他研究。此外,还在 Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) 和 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA) 网站上进行了进一步搜索,以确定报销申请的实例。 结果 在德国和法国,患者获得药物的平均时间分别为 128 天和 508 天。患者获得新药的时间延迟导致患者获益减少。新药审批的延误可归因于几个临床因素,包括:(i) 缺乏提交的临床试验的安全性和有效性数据;(ii) 缺乏临床相关的比较对象;(iii) 缺乏附加值的证明;(iv) 无法将数据与当地人口相联系。RWE 可以提供一套补充信息,弥补有关药物有效性和安全性的知识空白,从而在支持临床证据的生成方面发挥重要作用。当随机化不可行时,它还可以提供一个外部臂进行比较。此外,RWE 还能证明药物相对于现有疗法的额外益处,并帮助确定药物在疾病管理中的作用。然而,RWE 研究也面临着一些局限性,包括数据质量的不稳定性、解决特定研究问题的挑战、方法上的限制以及对分析可信度的担忧。 结论 由于 HTA 机构要求提供科学、可靠的临床证据,以评估药物在特定亚人群中的有效性和安全性,并提供相关的有效终点,因此药物的获取通常会被延迟。利用 RWE 正在彻底改变支持 HTA 申报的整个临床开发流程。在药物临床开发过程中,利益相关者就如何提供高质量的相关临床数据进行早期接触,对于确保 RWE 的稳健性、可靠性和可接受性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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