Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments.

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
Sophie van Beekhuizen, Menglu Che, Loraine Monfort, Mahmoud Hashim, Ali Azough, Nicole Kubitz, Adrian Griffin, Martin Price
{"title":"Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments.","authors":"Sophie van Beekhuizen, Menglu Che, Loraine Monfort, Mahmoud Hashim, Ali Azough, Nicole Kubitz, Adrian Griffin, Martin Price","doi":"10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Beginning in January 2025, all new active substances must undergo evaluation of relative clinical effectiveness through European Union (EU) joint clinical assessments (JCAs). In the absence of head-to-head data, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) become indispensable in meeting the numerous population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) criteria to support decision-making.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined ITCs in European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) to obtain valuable insights into their potential implications for future JCAs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The EUnetHTA website was hand-searched for REAs of pharmaceutical products between 2010 and 2021. Information on PICO, ITC methods, ITC limitations/critiques, and relative effectiveness conclusions were systematically extracted. On the basis of the final EUnetHTA critiques, suitability of ITC evidence was categorised by the current study authors as appropriate, unsuitable or unclear.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three REAs were identified. Twelve REAs included an ITC, of which six were in oncology indications. Across the REAs, 64 comparisons were required, with a median of four comparators per REA (range 1-18). In total, 25 comparisons were informed by indirect evidence; the suitability of ITCs was categorised as unclear in all but one of the 25 comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multiple analyses and ITCs were necessary to address multiple PICOs. Although most ITCs were categorised as unclear within the REAs, they were still considered appropriate to inform decision-making. The EU JCA process will most likely require health technology developers to use various ITC approaches to address the multiple PICOs requested, recognising the inherent limitations of these methodologies. Efforts to address potential challenges for EU JCA should focus on supporting JCA assessors/co-assessors and national HTA agencies in the evaluation and interpretation of ITCs to enable decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Beginning in January 2025, all new active substances must undergo evaluation of relative clinical effectiveness through European Union (EU) joint clinical assessments (JCAs). In the absence of head-to-head data, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) become indispensable in meeting the numerous population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) criteria to support decision-making.

Objective: This study examined ITCs in European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) to obtain valuable insights into their potential implications for future JCAs.

Methods: The EUnetHTA website was hand-searched for REAs of pharmaceutical products between 2010 and 2021. Information on PICO, ITC methods, ITC limitations/critiques, and relative effectiveness conclusions were systematically extracted. On the basis of the final EUnetHTA critiques, suitability of ITC evidence was categorised by the current study authors as appropriate, unsuitable or unclear.

Results: Twenty-three REAs were identified. Twelve REAs included an ITC, of which six were in oncology indications. Across the REAs, 64 comparisons were required, with a median of four comparators per REA (range 1-18). In total, 25 comparisons were informed by indirect evidence; the suitability of ITCs was categorised as unclear in all but one of the 25 comparisons.

Conclusion: Multiple analyses and ITCs were necessary to address multiple PICOs. Although most ITCs were categorised as unclear within the REAs, they were still considered appropriate to inform decision-making. The EU JCA process will most likely require health technology developers to use various ITC approaches to address the multiple PICOs requested, recognising the inherent limitations of these methodologies. Efforts to address potential challenges for EU JCA should focus on supporting JCA assessors/co-assessors and national HTA agencies in the evaluation and interpretation of ITCs to enable decision-making.

euethta相对有效性评估中的间接治疗比较:欧盟联合临床评估实施的经验和建议
背景:从2025年1月开始,所有新的原料药必须通过欧盟联合临床评估(JCAs)进行相对临床有效性评估。在缺乏面对面数据的情况下,间接治疗比较(ITCs)在满足众多人群、干预、比较和结果(PICO)标准以支持决策方面变得不可或缺。目的:本研究检查了欧洲卫生技术评估网络(EUnetHTA)相对有效性评估(REAs)中的ITCs,以获得其对未来JCAs的潜在影响的有价值的见解。方法:手工检索2010 ~ 2021年医药产品的REAs。系统地提取了PICO、ITC方法、ITC限制/批评和相对有效性结论的信息。在最终的EUnetHTA评论的基础上,ITC证据的适宜性被当前的研究作者分类为适宜、不适宜或不明确。结果:共鉴定出23个REAs。12个rea包括一个ITC,其中6个是肿瘤适应症。在整个区域评估中,需要进行64个比较,每个区域评估中位数为4个比较国(范围1-18)。总共有25项比较是通过间接证据进行的;在25项比较中,除了一项外,其他所有比较都将国际贸易技术的适宜性归为不明确。结论:多重分析和ITCs是解决多重pico的必要手段。虽然大多数信息技术技术在区域评估范围内被归类为不明确,但它们仍然被认为是适当的,可以为决策提供信息。欧盟JCA进程很可能要求卫生技术开发人员使用各种ITC方法来处理所要求的多个pico,同时认识到这些方法的固有局限性。解决欧盟联合评估委员会面临的潜在挑战的努力应侧重于支持联合评估委员会的评估人员/共同评估人员和国家人道主义事务管理局机构评估和解释国际贸易协定,以使决策成为可能。
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
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
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