Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W. Shaw
{"title":"在健康技术评估、监管要求和已发表文献中使用 EQ-5D 进行临床结果评估的综述","authors":"Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W. Shaw","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (<i>n</i> = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W. Shaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (<i>n</i> = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究旨在确定在健康技术评估(HTA)决策、监管标签声明和已发表文献中,EQ-5D 在非经济背景下作为临床结果评估(COA)终点的使用程度。本研究确定了英国、法国、德国和美国的 HTA 机构在 2019 年至 2021 年期间发布的药物技术评估 (TA)。此外,还确定了欧洲药品管理局 (EMA) 和美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 在 2016 年至 2021 年期间批准的药物产品标签。此外,还进行了系统文献综述(SLR)。排除了仅在经济评估背景下报告 EQ-5D 的文献。在已发表的 1072 篇 TA 中,195 篇(18%)报告了 COA 的 EQ-5D 数据,其中大部分报告的是德国的数据(n = 138)。EQ-5D视觉模拟量表(EQ-VAS)报告最多,占所有TA的68%,在Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG)和Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)的TA中分别占100%和94%。共有 320 种药物获得了欧洲药品管理局(EMA)的批准或审查,735 种药物获得了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的批准或审查。其中,15 种药物从 EMA 报告了 EQ-5D 数据,35 种药物从 FDA 报告了 EQ-5D 数据;不过,提交给 FDA 的所有 EQ-5D 数据均在证明文件中报告。同时报告 EQ-5D 指数和 EQ-VAS 的情况最多,占所有文件的 32%。对于 SLR,4248 份检索记录中有 329 份(8%)被纳入。同时报告 EQ-5D 指数和 EQ-VAS 的情况最多,占所有研究的 36%。根据监管、HTA 和系统文献综述对近期批准的药物进行的临床评估显示,在经济评估之外,EQ-5D 的使用非常有限。这可能是由于 EQ-5D 可能缺乏灵敏度,无法发现预期治疗效果较小的病情改善情况,也可能是由于 EQ-5D 被认为不是临床评估治疗效果的适当 COA 工具。EQ-5D作为一种COA,更有可能用于癌症药物的临床评估,而非其他疾病类别的治疗药物。HTA 机构更倾向于使用 EQ-5D 进行 COA,尤其是在德国。
A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature
The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (n = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.